Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[BeanAnimal]

Whats interesting is that ive tried carbon dosing over a few short periods, a few times, and almost always noticed undesirable effects shortly after, you would think this would provide that bacteria food source, no?

Dosing a concentration of bacteria and feeding heavy has produced the opposite. Observable, material positive results. Something to consider in the po4/no3 measurement not telling the whole story.

There is the rapid oxygen depletion associated with the bloom that creates the bacteria. Maybe there are other swinging mechanisms that make this less desirable.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

There is the rapid oxygen depletion associated with the bloom that creates the bacteria. Maybe there are other swinging mechanisms that make this less desirable.

Agree. Im more of the mind the tank almost becomes a furnace. In the past this was summed up by heavy in/heavy out. I could never heavy in, because i would spike the traditional parameters, and back off or introduce an unneccesary component like carbon or lanthanum/gfo/etc.

I think the secret lies in the mechanism of the furnace - what gets the tank to process ALOT of input. I dont think its coral, coraline, or other generally desirable organisms.

Its also alot easier to allow the reaction to happen outside the tank (mix the carbon, food source and bacteria) than to attempt it in the tank (oxygen depletion, nutrient spikes, competing algaes)

 

[SDchris]

Cycling aside, if we can get reefers to not assume that products such as that below are necessarily desirable, it will be helpful, IMO.:

 

[Polymate3D]

Take my opinions with a grain of salt.

Starting a tank with new floor and rockwork is a blank canvas for everything to grow on and so the system goes through massive spikes and phases. We are all just trying to make a established set of bacteria's which the tank needs, but it isn't ready to begin with for any of it.

Starting a tank by filling it with live sand and rock, along with corals turns it much more into a already established aquarium, so it works without all the time, spikes etc.

I think most are not starting and tank and instantly filling it with stuff, due to cost and wanting to build it up over time.

So we the established view point is we 'cycle' the aquarium and then build slowly. I think this is a old approach to thinking about it.

Our focus should be getting a stable and established bacteria system in place and something to feed it as the 1st step.

Here is my baby 0.7L Pico experimental reef aquarium. Being just 700ml of water, or 0.2 Gallons, how could I go slow?

I started it with freshly made saltwater mixed up, my 3D printed rockwork, and placed a kenya tree, GSP and a small piece of cheato from my established tank with some amphipods in it.

Day 3 I added the sexy shrimp. I didn't experience any cycle at all and everything was happy until my thermistor failed...Its a experimental tank so the PCB is being worked on.

Its now running again and going well so far, but with this pico's if I take established and add corals I am finding it does just fine and then add a light bioload.

- Paul

 

[GARRIGA]

For example, starting with plenty of macroalgae, soft corals, and coralline right from day or week one. No fish, or perhaps only an algae eating fish , etc.

Point I’m making to excluding fish regarding plant or plant like seeking carbon and that lacking due to exclusion of fish that would otherwise provide it. I’m excluding ATS since those gain efficiency by having to access room co2.

Don’t see how corals and submerged macroalgae such as chaeto would not experience the same difficulties. Especially if lit longer than dark period.

Plus adding live rock nullifies the theory of attempting to cycle without bacteria as it contains bacteria. Thinking that should be excluded since we already know tanks can be up and running day one with sufficient live rock.

Only path I see being successful day one absent fish being an ATS used to process N and P and C. Something I’m testing after using hydroxide radicals to resolve ammonium as an option for QT where bacteria would be affected by certain medications. Curious if nitrites persist or also converted to nitrates which I can later solve post medication with an ATS.

 

[Glenner’sreef]

Exactly the intent. A typical moderate to advanced reefer is unlikely to read an article titled Ammonia and The Reef Aquarium, assuming it is just all the same stuff on cycling, toxicity, measurement, etc.

Exactly! Run with it!!!

 

[revhtree Verified Admin]

Can't wait to see what comes of this!

 

[Miami Reef]

While I cannot make any specific claims, I do not understand why an SPS coral cannot be put into a new tank set up this way. It may not work out, and I'm also not sure why they would have a problem in other methods, if all basic needs are met. it certainly might be the case that unstable bacteria populations and lacking sufficient friendly types (unrelated to nitrification) may play a role, and if so, this method might be similarly slow to other startup methods in preparing the tank for SPS corals.

I’ve been saying this! I never understood how an acropora wouldn’t survive if they had everything the needed in a new tank.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

I’ve been saying this! I never understood how an acropora wouldn’t survive if they had everything the needed in a new tank.

Everyone says this, because thats the epitome of a mature tank, and why people recommend cycling a tank prior to making additions.

In an immature tank, the assumption is that "everything an acropora needs" cant be provided because of the rapid and dynamic biological processes occuring in a race for colonization by various organisms at various life stages, compounded by the lack of definitive understanding of what an acropora truly needs or doesnt, in an aquarium.

 

[Miami Reef]

If you are experienced, I believe you can easily keep an acropora in a new tank. That’s just my opinion.

I’ve seen it done, and I’ve done it myself (in QT).

 

[HomebroodExotics]

If you are experienced, I believe you can easily keep an acropora in a new tank. That’s just my opinion.

I’ve seen it done, and I’ve done it myself (in QT).

I've done it myself as well but I wouldn't say that it is easy. You definitely need to have the experience to be able to keep the aquarium stable over time. And you will only learn that through practice, trial and error, probably not good for the first set up imo. But definitely a fun project for anyone wanting to test and hone their skills with an additional aquarium. Anyone seriously in this hobby needs more than one aquarium in my opinion anyway.

 

[ReeferZ1227]

If you are experienced, I believe you can easily keep an acropora in a new tank. That’s just my opinion.

I’ve seen it done, and I’ve done it myself (in QT).

My biggest colony is a valida i added within first 3 weeks, along with a sizable goniopora. I killed a ton of coral along the way. I dont think that provides evidence or direction towards anything though, other than these 2 corals were more resilient.

Reefers often have different goals:
1. Grow healthy coral fast
2. Grow coral fast
3. Color up coral
4. Just keep coral additions alive.

Im most interested in the science and reproducable procedures for bullet #1.

 

[ReeferA]

N and P are NOT absorbed by corals directly from the water. N and P are added so the bacteria in the new live sand, corals, live rock, etc. can be fed and corals eat the bacteria.

Ammonia on the other hand, can be absorbed by corals as an inorganic source. So adding corals which hosts some bacteria in it's biodome and feeding ammonia at lower levels is the more efficient than feeding N and P.

 

[KrisReef]

Yes, interesting. Do you have a link?

https://search.app/A4jzUrzqTaixLDof

Yes, interesting. Do you have a link?

Thought I posted this yesterday. My computer must have a stuck cycle?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I feel like a lot is lost in translation from the intent. It’s all about what you intend to do in the aquarium. If I plan to keep 20 fish in a 5 gallon aquarium then I will need to do things a certain way. If I plan to keep 1 fish in a 40 gallon aquarium and fill it with coral then that process is different. If I want an aquarium with only coral and no fish then that process is different from a system with more fish than a coral load. Know what I mean? I agree with every thing you say about what ammonia is and does in our aquariums but to paint ammonia as a one way good guy in our aquariums is just as bad as saying bad bacteria imo. Ammonia is another parameter that just needs to be controlled and it seems like we are figuring out that there’s more than one way to skin that cat now but we still have to skin it. (Poor kitty).

I’m not intending to portray ammonia as only having benefits, and tanks where nitrate rises continually need nitrifiers (or more photosynthetic organisms).

Obviously, ammonia has serious issues in shipping bags and in tanks where ammonia production outpaces uptake (those mentioned above where nitrate rises). The latter is a pretty large portion of aquaria, but not all.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

N and P are NOT absorbed by corals directly from the water. N and P are added so the bacteria in the new live sand, corals, live rock, etc. can be fed and corals eat the bacteria.

Ammonia on the other hand, can be absorbed by corals as an inorganic source. So adding corals which hosts some bacteria in it's biodome and feeding ammonia at lower levels is the more efficient than feeding N and P.

Your first sentence is clearly untrue as written, and your third sentence proves it.

Thus, I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to communicate. I certainly agree that corals can get N and P from organic particulate sources including whole bacteria, as well as ammonia and inorganic orthophosphate.

 

[James w Lewis]

So, are we saying that a protein skimmer is not necessary

 

[BeanAnimal]

So, are we saying that a protein skimmer is not necessary

Context is everything. If the N and P are imported in higher quantities than the system can process by one mechanism or another, then they must be exported to prevent accumulation to unwanted levels. So a skimmer may or may not be employed as one method of control.

Skimmers serve other purposes as well (gas exchange is one). Is that needed or not, again context to the rest of the system is required to answer the question.

 

[Timfish]

It's what I've been doing for almost 3 decades. My mentor was a huge proponent of using "cured" or "seeded" (quarintined) live rock and set up systems very quickly back in the 90s. Delbeek and Sprung pointed out "It should be clear that one cannot assemble a fully stocked reef tank in one day relying on a conditioned biological filter to purify the waste from unseeded live rock. However, one can build a healthy reef system in one day using well seeded live rock and an unconditioned trickle filter, or no trickle filter at all" pg 136 "The Reef Aquarium" Vol I, 1994

How I would start a new tank

Even prisons have evolved to having more secure places where humans can get away and hide with opaque walls and stuff. Imagine being scooped up by aliens and kept in a wire cage with a cot and no blanket and a bucket to poop in... compared to having a toilet with a door, a bedroom with covers...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[rtparty]

So, are we saying that a protein skimmer is not necessary

A skimmer has never been necessary but we saw major improvements when they became poplular a few decades ago.

They have nothing to do with ammonia though