Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[BeanAnimal]

is it me or has anyone else noticed @Lasse English skills are flat out polished … maybe we should let the Swedes teach us English

I can't understand a word he says. I am just here for the Swedish twerking....

 

[Reefering1]

I'd watch that...

 

[Doctorgori]

@Randy Holmes-Farley & @Hans-Werner …
you two mind fleshing out this Nirate/Iron thing for your studio audience ? … I mean nitrates reducing iron could be a major thing if true … and even if false should be interesting regardless …
….appreciate the gray matter
….pardon the summons

btw, Again I have high phosphate and zero algae, the iron-nitrate connection interest me

I'd watch that...

Indeed, I’d “watch that” also if someone could twerk and at the same time speak with a Swedish accent ….

I mean who doesn’t like Swedish accents

 

[ReeferZ1227]

I get so gassed up reading the back and forth between the heavy hitters. Should be a podcast tbh

 

[GARRIGA]

Swedish Reefer Twirking

 

[Reefering1]

Swedish Reefer Twirking

Lol. Ok not quite what I had in mind, but I did watch it(half anyways). Smh

 

[brandon429]

Randy I noticed you mentioned briefly a .5 cutoff for inaction

that's double the allowance of the past 10+ years, set solely by api's classic symptomless .25 reading


the reason you're allowing for double the reported range and the fact nobody else is allowing for it as a safe zone would be for sure something I'd like to read. I would like to set the bar at 1 ppm though, even more than you gave


reason why: seen just as many false stalls reported at 1 ppm as I have for .25 or .5, let's increase the range over .5 to handle even more test kit variation from the masses. .5 is what I'd expect as a range upper from the chemists on our site, not res publica. with their red sea kits or api kits, and all the variables that alter a reported ammonia level I'm bidding for double the .5 pls

*the fact this level is negotiable, vs fixed at a clear cutoff point would be neat to read about. how that upper range was picked/neat to know.

ammonia non control is painted as one of the biggest risks in reefing, the stuck cycle or the broken cycle.

even today, people buy a lot of bottle bac to remedy that risk event, real or not. it would be nice to read about that aspect in a future article.

 

[Kactai]

So ammonia feeds nitrifying bacteria and we go through a traditional cycle cultivating that bacteria to keep our fish safe from ammonia that they produce. We then add corals who then consume the ammonia, potentially faster than the bacteria can, leaving the bacteria to die off, creating space for the so called uglies to take place….. is this the theory? Because that makes a lot of sense as a very simplified version of what I’m seeing in my reef tank. Undetectable nitrates, low phosphates (0.03ppm) and Dino’s and cyano problems as soon as significant coral growth and biomass showed through increased alk consumption to coincide with a bottoming out of nitrates.

This also supports the idea of no cycle and adding coral on day one and adding fish later. Sorry if I’m paraphrasing/simplifying the entire thread here… just an amateur trying to make sense of all this.

 

[Hans-Werner]

I have not completely understood it yet, this article at least shows the complexity of redox processes in marine sediments involving iron, manganese, iodine and nitrogen species and at the same time it documents that the processes were not completely understood at the time the article was written and published 1999/2000.

For me this leaves some space for speculation.

Although this older one is about redox processes in the water column it also gives insight into redox processes.

I am convinced that redox processes between nitrogen species and trace metals play important roles in reef aquaria.

 

[GARRIGA]

Wouldn’t this be simple enough to setup a small container, provide proper PAR, no substrate, no biological, no mechanical, dose ammonium, dose phosphates, maintain trace and monitor ammonia, nitrite and nitrates along with phosphates and determine how much ammonium and phosphates need to attain growth without having excess ammonium then verify nitrites and nitrates either zero or very low thereby confirming the coral are processing nutrients and mostly the sole solution although some will still happen by bacteria living on glass including cords plugs and crisis themselves?

Did this with FW plants although only dosed ammonium chloride and provide minerals and phosphates by replacing evaporation with dechlorinated tap. I’m not a scientist therefore took shortcuts as I wasn’t concerned with eliminating every variable and just wanted confirmation plants could solve the major three which were always zero even after adding fish later on.

Only issue was quickly running out of carbon and plants then obtaining it directly via converting that which provides alkalinity. My simplistic explanation. Like I said. Not a scientist but have stayed at a holiday inn

 

[Lasse]

@Hans-Werner - As I understand both articles that you linked to was written before the discovery of the chemolithoautotroph anammox mediating bacteria ( it was discovered 1999) At least - some of the conclusions in the article Interactions between metal oxides and species of nitrogen and iodine in bioturbatedmarine sediments (first link in your post) is - IMO - total ruled out by the discovery of the anammox process (the part that´s try to explain the lost amounts of NH3/NH4 in the sediment)


Correct me if I´m wrong but does not all of this concentrated down to a question about which compound is used as an electron acceptor (hence get reduced) in anaerobic respiration by facultative heterotrophic bacteria? (facultative in this context = capable of both aerobic and anaerobic respiration). The preferred hierarchy for used electron acceptor seem to be O2 - NO3 - Mn(IV) and Fe(III) even if a look at the redox potential suggest another order (O2-Fe(III) - NO3 - Mn(IV) )

As I understand you - in systems with low or no NO3 - not biologically useful Fe(III) will be reduced into biological useful Fe(II) that will reenter the water column an be able for growth. The mechanism for this should be that facultative heterotrophic bacteria in absence of both O2 and NO3 will use Fe(III) as electron acceptor, hence the waste from this process is Fe(II) will reenter the water column.

This process assuming that anaerobic zones are available - and that sufficient DOC is available too.

This process may exist - especial in system like mine with active anaerobic mineralization but I doubt that it has a significant role in sequestration of iron in the sediment in most systems

There is not any doubt that Fe (II) is oxidized into Fe(III) in the water column and that a lot of Fe (III) is captured in the sediment and not directly recirculated as Fe(II) ( Fe (II) = biologically available - Fe (III) not). But IMO - in saltwater (rich in sulfate) - most Fe will be removed from the environment via the formation of insoluble iron sulfides

I’m skeptical that this reaction is important in the water column. Yes, it happens in anaerobic environments, but ferrous iron and nitrate mixed together do not react at any significant rate, and ferrous nitrate is a stable solid.

I’m interested to see if Hans-Werner has evidence that it happens in the bulk water.

I wasnt saying you did claim it, but if it does not happen in the bulk water, then overall I’m skeptical about any oxidizing effect of nitrate being important to organisms that live in the bulk water, such as corals.

I´ll think you are right from this article

ENVIRONMENTAL OCCURRENCE OFMETAL REDUCTION Microbial metal reduction occurs primarily in stratifiedenvironments-either quiescent water columns or sediments with high inputs of organic carbon. In such environments,oxygen depletion often occurs rather rapidly, leaving the remaining organic matter to be dealt with anaerobically (10).This results in the establishment of an anaerobic community consisting of fermenters and a variety of different anaerobic respirers capable of using the various electron acceptors present. Good examples of stratified marine environments are virtually all marine sediments (10) and anoxic basins,such as fjords or the Black Sea. In Fig. 1, the sub-oxic zone of the Black Sea, in which a stratified series of reductive reactions occurs under conditions of limiting oxygen, is shown (32). Note in Fig. 1 the zones of Mn(II) and Fe(II)appearance, indicating zones of metal reduction. As expected from their relative redox potentials (50), both Mn and Fe are reduced higher in the water column than is sulfate.Similar profiles are seen with sediments, fjords, and lakes throughout the world, although striking differences are seen with freshwater sediments in which sulfate concentrations are characteristically much lower, and methane production represents the usual terminal step in carbon transformation(12, 39); in such sulfate-poor systems, Mn(IV) and Fe(III)can constitute the major environmental anaerobic oxidants.Examples of such environments are many North American glacial lakes, in which Mn and Fe can constitute up to several percentage points of the dry weight of the sediments,thus becoming the dominant anaerobic electron acceptors(29, 41). The abundance of Mn and Fe, coupled with the capacity of the reduced metals to be rapidly converted totheir oxidized insoluble states (and thereby returned to the sediments via precipitation), makes them ideally suited for roles as inter environmental redox mediators or "shuttles" in many natural environments (Fig. 2).

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Hans-Werner]

As I understand both articles that you linked to was written before the discovery of the chemolithoautotroph anammox mediating bacteria ( it was discovered 1999) At least - some of the conclusions in the article Interactions between metal oxides and species of nitrogen and iodine in bioturbatedmarine sediments (first link in your post) is - IMO - total ruled out by the discovery of the anammox process (the part that´s try to explain the lost amounts of NH3/NH4 in the sediment)

Anammox could only cause N2 production but none of the other redox reactions. In my eyes anammox is often overestimated. If I recall it right there was an article showing anammox is less widespread as previously thought.

This process assuming that anaerobic zones are available - and that sufficient DOC is available too.

This process may exist - especial in system like mine with active anaerobic mineralization but I doubt that it has a significant role in sequestration of iron in the sediment in most systems

There is not any doubt that Fe (II) is oxidized into Fe(III) in the water column and that a lot of Fe (III) is captured in the sediment and not directly recirculated as Fe(II) ( Fe (II) = biologically available - Fe (III) not). But IMO - in saltwater (rich in sulfate) - most Fe will be removed from the environment via the formation of insoluble iron sulfides

I think if the tank has a substrate, at least temporarily anaerobic zones for facultatively anaerobic organisms are generally available. Zones that are sometimes anaerobic may exist even in mulm particles. Also organic carbon is something that is added with every feeding, fish feces, algal detritus etc. and not scarce in my eyes.

The production of H2S and sulfides needs lower redox potential than all the other redox reactions shown. It takes only place after all other electron acceptors discussed here including nitrate are reduced.

 

[Lasse]

Also organic carbon is something that is added with every feeding, fish feces, algal detritus etc. and not scarce in my eyes.

Yes - but it is in some way "bound" - not easily available for delivering the amount of DOC in order to serve as electron donator. A steady anaerobic process need a certain amount of DOC that also serve as electron donator, hence the addition of DOC when you want a steady and fast denitrification process. DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon

Anammox could only cause N2 production but none of the other redox reactions.

In the article - the authors try to explain why measurements in the sediment show this below, My bold

The processes that intercept the upward ammonia flux are quantitatively important, for if we assume a linear concentration gradient between the middle of the first sampling interval(0 to 5 mm) and the sediment surface, and transport by molecular diffusion, the “missing” ammonia flux is 2.05 and 1.20mmol/m2/d at St. 23 and St. 23B, respectively.

In order to explain this "missing" ammonia flux they show that nitrification could not be the only factor explaining this. Among these other speculations was this

A third alternative is that ammonia is oxidized directly to N2 by the abundant authigenic manganese oxides in the sediment surface layer, thereby short-circuiting the nitrification–denitrification process altogether (Luther et al., 1997).

IMO - the Anammox can also be an explanation for the missing ammonia flux up to the water column.

The production of H2S and sulfides needs lower redox potential than all the other redox reactions shown. It takes only place after all other electron acceptors discussed here including nitrate are reduced.

Yes but it have been shown that NO3 in the water effectively block or lower the H2S production. Low or zero NO3 concentration favour the bacteria groups that use sulfate as electron acceptor - leaving H2S as a waste as we leaving CO2 as a waste in our aerobic respiration.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Polymate3D]

This thread keeps coming back in my head, specifically the starting of a new aquarium and the best approach.

My head keeps coming back to feeling like LFS establishing rockwork with some coral frags as well would be a great solution. I will give an example.

Go to my LFS and I buy 4lb of established rock with GSP & Kenya tree. Taken in a bag still underwater like when you buy a fish of coral.

Place into a brand new Fluval EVO with this rock, along with a small fish (Goby / tailspot blenny) and start feeding the fish and dosing a small amount of ammonia.

The rock was kept in water to not die off and contains the bacteria, along with the corals which will like the ammonia, nitrate etc. The fish acts as a natural food source for the coral.

I feel like this could be a better approach. Instead of all rock, cycle, fish, inverts and the corals, adding bits of everything in stages.

- Paul

 

[Doctorgori]

I get so gassed up reading the back and forth between the heavy hitters. Should be a podcast tbh

LOL, I haven’t felt so inadequate since my last R rated DVD
…. R2R podcast? with BRS winding down, maybe good Idea, I’ll manage the people and finances
Monday RHF in chemistry
Tuesday Jay fish diseases and biology
et et …
…of course I’ll do all the “paid” sponsorships… of course …
…the possibilities are endless

Correct me if I´m wrong but does not all of this concentrated down to a question about which compound is used as an electron acceptor (hence get reduced) in anaerobic respiration by facultative heterotrophic bacteria? (facultative in this context = capable of both aerobic and anaerobic respiration). The preferred hierarchy for used electron acceptor seem to be O2 - NO3 - Mn(IV) and Fe(III) even if a look at the redox potential suggest another order (O2-Fe(III) - NO3 - Mn(IV) )

….apparently I spoke too soon, ^^^^ that ain’t English, that’s “High Valarian” …. Id bet he has blonde hair too

This thread keeps coming back in my head, specifically the starting of a new aquarium and the best approach.

My head keeps coming back to feeling like LFS establishing rockwork with some coral frags as well would be a great solution. I will give an example.

Go to my LFS and I buy 4lb of established rock with GSP & Kenya tree. Taken in a bag still underwater like when you buy a fish of coral.

Place into a brand new Fluval EVO with this rock, along with a small fish (Goby / tailspot blenny) and start feeding the fish and dosing a small amount of ammonia.

The rock was kept in water to not die off and contains the bacteria, along with the corals which will like the ammonia, nitrate etc. The fish acts as a natural food source for the coral.

I feel like this could be a better approach. Instead of all rock, cycle, fish, inverts and the corals, adding bits of everything in stages.

- Paul

I don’t cycle using any standard methods either…I don’t promote or post them as I never did a formal log or outline the procedures… I also go by what the algae looks like and other “bio markers” ….this whole thread intrigues me,
PTI

 

[Lasse]

….apparently I spoke too soon, ^^^^ that ain’t English, that’s “High Valarian” …. Id bet he has blonde hair too

No comments

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dburr1014]

No comments

Sincerely Lasse

Digging that shirt!

 

[Garf]

No comments

Sincerely Lasse

I expect you've got a massive hammer.
#Thorhasabigtool

 

[Garf]

Randy I noticed you mentioned briefly a .5 cutoff for inaction

that's double the allowance of the past 10+ years, set solely by api's classic symptomless .25 reading


the reason you're allowing for double the reported range and the fact nobody else is allowing for it as a safe zone would be for sure something I'd like to read. I would like to set the bar at 1 ppm though, even more than you gave


reason why: seen just as many false stalls reported at 1 ppm as I have for .25 or .5, let's increase the range over .5 to handle even more test kit variation from the masses. .5 is what I'd expect as a range upper from the chemists on our site, not res publica. with their red sea kits or api kits, and all the variables that alter a reported ammonia level I'm bidding for double the .5 pls

*the fact this level is negotiable, vs fixed at a clear cutoff point would be neat to read about. how that upper range was picked/neat to know.

ammonia non control is painted as one of the biggest risks in reefing, the stuck cycle or the broken cycle.

even today, people buy a lot of bottle bac to remedy that risk event, real or not. it would be nice to read about that aspect in a future article.

Pretty sure your theory that any readings above zero on a TAN, must be a faulty, have been been debunked.

 

[brandon429]

I think that's a troll attempt, nonspecific accusation not relevant to discussion here but carry over from prior thread issues was the tell.


where's the link, what's the specific you are referring to? lemme see the bad call + the tank outcome in question. bad ammonia calls have consequences on file, easily linked.


what fixed this cycle- the disputed info?

New tank fish IN cycle, ammonia won't go down

I started a new FISH IN cycle in a 15G tank eight days ago with a 1oz bottle of Fritz turbo-start 900; shortly after, I introduced two small clownfish approximately 1 1/4". After much researching on this forum, I thought the Fritz 900 would quickly process ammonia within 24-48 hours. The tank...

www.reef2reef.com