Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[Gregg @ ADP]

Or put differently, if you are presented with a large pile of dollar bills and a large pile of pennies, you will likely have a preference for the bills over the pennies, despite being able to use either. It takes you less energy to gain money picking up bills and it takes a coral less energy to gain N sucking up ammonia.

This is an excellent analogy

 

[Dburr1014]

Or put differently, if you are presented with a large pile of dollar bills and a large pile of pennies, you will likely have a preference for the bills over the pennies, despite being able to use either. It takes you less energy to gain money picking up bills and it takes a coral less energy to gain N sucking up ammonia.

Easier to transport also!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Hi Randy, how does coral's uptake of ammonia compare to consumption of bacteria, phytoplankton, or zooplankton as a source of nutrition? Can corals derive enough energy and nutrition from capturing live food in a reef tank, or is ammonia dosing easier and equally effective? Should the two be combined (phyto dosing and ammonia dosing) for greater effect?

I don’t know the answer to that, but corals certainly get a lot of benefits from particulate foods and it may be preferable to ammonia for N.

 

[Lasse]

Or put differently, if you are presented with a large pile of dollar bills and a large pile of pennies, you will likely have a preference for the bills over the pennies, despite being able to use either. It takes you less energy to gain money picking up bills and it takes a coral less energy to gain N sucking up ammonia.

With all respect - in my world - this demand a conscious choice which corals probably do not have capability for. Maybe it is a difference between languages there the Swedish equivalent to the word preference is more linked to a conscious choice. Here it is more a biological/chemical/ecological/ energy conservation fact that the NH3/NH4 probably will be used first - not a conscious choice from the coral. As I understand it - a coral can´t know that NH3/NH4 is more economical and easier to transport than NO3 - but we know that it is the best economical outcome of choosing dollars instead of cents. but if you have a person that not know the difference between dollars and cent - or you have tricked someone to think that cents is more worth than dollars - how will the outcome be?

particularly closed systems such as aquariums that operate differently than open systems.

Most of my experiences of nitrification are from Recirculatory Aquaculture System in fish farms and large Public aquariums.

when I virtually never saw testable levels NH3/4 present in any water samples, whether the systems had bio media or not.

But you probably measured NO3

I have some numbers of nitrification rate in my system - @Randy Holmes-Farley can I publish them here in this thread or are I drifting away to much from the meaning with this thread?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

The nitrification capacity of a normal saltwater aquarium without a special nitrification equipment is low and mostly most important in the beginning in order to establish a population.

I need some clarification when you have time.

What is meant by “nitrification capacity of normal saltwater aquarium is low”? Do you have a specific ammonia consumption rate in mind or is this with to respect to keeping fish? Without fish, a saltwater aquarium with just coral would seem to have sufficient capacity. The need for auxiliary equipment possibly indicates that the aquarium is overstocked. I understand this would include about 99.99% of all saltwater aquaria.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

With all respect - in my world - this demand a conscious choice which corals probably do not have capability for. Maybe it is a difference between languages there the Swedish equivalent to the word preference is more linked to a conscious choice. Here it is more a biological/chemical/ecological/ energy conservation fact that the NH3/NH4 probably will be used first - not a conscious choice from the coral. As I understand it - a coral can´t know that NH3/NH4 is more economical and easier to transport than NO3 - but we know that it is the best economical outcome of choosing dollars instead of cents. but if you have a person that not know the difference between dollars and cent - or you have tricked someone to think that cents is more worth than dollars - how will the outcome be?


Most of my experiences of nitrification are from Recirculatory Aquaculture System in fish farms and large Public aquariums.


But you probably measured NO3

I have some numbers of nitrification rate in my system - @Randy Holmes-Farley can I publish them here in this thread or are I drifting away to much from the meaning with this thread?

Sincerely Lasse

In my world, anything presented with two options that repeatedly picks one of them over the other is showing a preference.

Organisms have evolved all sorts of preferences in a myriad of ways that benefit them. They take up some things and do not take up others. Doing so helps them thrive relative to competitors that do not have such preferences.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I have some numbers of nitrification rate in my system - @Randy Holmes-Farley can I publish them here in this thread or are I drifting away to much from the meaning with this thread?

I think this bears directly on the topic. I would not be surprised if tanks with accumulating nitrate had substantial nitrifying capacity while those with an N deficiency (say, needing to dose nitrate) had much less.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

But you probably measured NO3

Which was exactly my point. Whether or not we go to some lengths to facilitate nitrification by adding extra surface area or ignore it altogether, the result is the same…whatever amount of NH3/4 is produced within the aquarium with be processed.

Now when we add algae and coral into the equation, there is even less of a necessity to try to facilitate nitrifier populations by specifically adding structured for them to grow.

Where I’m going with all of this is that I have been pulled into a public aquarium project and I’m trying to get them to not use up valuable money and space on bio-balls, which they seem insistent on doing

 

[Dan_P]

I think this bears directly on the topic. I would not be surprised if tanks with accumulating nitrate had substantial nitrifying capacity while those with an N deficiency (say, needing to dose nitrate) had much less.

Are we measuring nitrifying capacity as ppm of ammonia concentration loss per unit of time normalized to something?

 

[Lasse]

First - a picture so everyone knows witch bio load and photosynthetic load the aquarium is handling

​

Measurements I have done twice (shouting down the denitrification by stop dosing DOC) shows a rise in of the NO3 levels of around 5 mg/L NO3 a day. It is a part of my total nitrification rate but it is possible to do some calculations. 5 mg/L NO3 correspond to around 1.13 NO3-N. It means that 1.13 NH4-N has been converted to NO3-N. 1.13 NH4-N correspond to 1.45 mg/L NH4. My system is 300 L => 435 mg NH4 have been converted to NO3 during 24 hours.

My feeding contribute with around 154 mg N a day => 198 mg NH4 a day. post 141 this thread

In the bottom of my reversed flow has an average of 0.34 mg/L higher than the DT. I have post 0.40 before but May was unnormal - I have take that away in these calculations. My flow is around 2000 L/day - it means that around 680 mg NH4 a day as most will come from the DSB.

Daily total input of NH4 into the system is 198+680 mg NH4 = 878 mg NH4. - Daily loss because of proven nitrification 435 mg NH4. Left to explain is 443 mg NH4 per day. I suspect that some will disappear by Anammox in the DSB but let us look at the worst scenario - all added and produced NH4 will be nitrified. With the best nitrification process - the Kaldnes moving bed with K5 carrier - around 400 mg NH4-N (514 mg NH4) will be removed daily and m2 area. 1 m2 area K5 is around 1 L carrier. Less than 1.5 L K5 in the right type of moving bed filter will nitrify my NH4 load completely. I do not use this technique - I use a fast flowing foam filter as nitrification filter.

Later on - in the fall - I will take away the nitrification filter and measure if my NH3/NH4 concentration in my DT rise.

Note that 878 mg NH4 in 300 liter correspond to an addition of around 3 mg/L NH4 a day.

Even if I am 100% wrong in my calculations I will get a nightmares of these figures - I hope that someone finds some faults in my calculations - it would be better for my nervs

I state before that I think that the nitrification rates are low in a normal aquarium. I still think that. If I look at possible area for nitrification in my aquaria - I will not stop at 10 m2. 1.5 m2 Kaldnes K5 manage this load.

This is very interesting and I will try to follow it up later in the fall

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Where I’m going with all of this is that I have been pulled into a public aquarium project and I’m trying to get them to not use up valuable money and space on bio-balls, which they seem insistent on doing

Is it a fish (shark tank) or a coral tank you are discussing? Whit my experiences in large public aquarium - I would not put my name on such recommendation. At least in the start - IMO - its necessary with either sand filters (backwashed often) or trickling filter even if it is a huge predominated coral tank.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

First - a picture so everyone knows witch bio load and photosynthetic load the aquarium is handling

​

Measurements I have done twice (shouting down the denitrification by stop dosing DOC) shows a rise in of the NO3 levels of around 5 mg/L NO3 a day. It is a part of my total nitrification rate but it is possible to do some calculations. 5 mg/L NO3 correspond to around 1.13 NO3-N. It means that 1.13 NH4-N has been converted to NO3-N. 1.13 NH4-N correspond to 1.45 mg/L NH4. My system is 300 L => 435 mg NH4 have been converted to NO3 during 24 hours.

My feeding contribute with around 154 mg N a day => 198 mg NH4 a day. post 141 this thread

In the bottom of my reversed flow has an average of 0.34 mg/L higher than the DT. I have post 0.40 before but May was unnormal - I have take that away in these calculations. My flow is around 2000 L/day - it means that around 680 mg NH4 a day as most will come from the DSB.

Daily total input of NH4 into the system is 198+680 mg NH4 = 878 mg NH4. - Daily loss because of proven nitrification 435 mg NH4. Left to explain is 443 mg NH4 per day. I suspect that some will disappear by Anammox in the DSB but let us look at the worst scenario - all added and produced NH4 will be nitrified. With the best nitrification process - the Kaldnes moving bed with K5 carrier - around 400 mg NH4-N (514 mg NH4) will be removed daily and m2 area. 1 m2 area K5 is around 1 L carrier. Less than 1.5 L K5 in the right type of moving bed filter will nitrify my NH4 load completely. I do not use this technique - I use a fast flowing foam filter as nitrification filter.

Later on - in the fall - I will take away the nitrification filter and measure if my NH3/NH4 concentration in my DT rise.

Note that 878 mg NH4 in 300 liter correspond to an addition of around 3 mg/L NH4 a day.

Even if I am 100% wrong in my calculations I will get a nightmares of these figures - I hope that someone finds some faults in my calculations - it would be better for my nervs

I state before that I think that the nitrification rates are low in a normal aquarium. I still think that. If I look at possible area for nitrification in my aquaria - I will not stop at 10 m2. 1.5 m2 Kaldnes K5 manage this load.

This is very interesting and I will try to follow it up later in the fall

Sincerely Lasse

Good explanation of how you are thinking about things.

Have you heard about anyone using a nitrification inhibitor in an aquarium, maybe to “see what happens”, like a shift in ammonia consumption by other bacteria or algae?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

First - a picture so everyone knows witch bio load and photosynthetic load the aquarium is handling

​

Measurements I have done twice (shouting down the denitrification by stop dosing DOC) shows a rise in of the NO3 levels of around 5 mg/L NO3 a day. It is a part of my total nitrification rate but it is possible to do some calculations. 5 mg/L NO3 correspond to around 1.13 NO3-N. It means that 1.13 NH4-N has been converted to NO3-N. 1.13 NH4-N correspond to 1.45 mg/L NH4. My system is 300 L => 435 mg NH4 have been converted to NO3 during 24 hours.

My feeding contribute with around 154 mg N a day => 198 mg NH4 a day. post 141 this thread

In the bottom of my reversed flow has an average of 0.34 mg/L higher than the DT. I have post 0.40 before but May was unnormal - I have take that away in these calculations. My flow is around 2000 L/day - it means that around 680 mg NH4 a day as most will come from the DSB.

Daily total input of NH4 into the system is 198+680 mg NH4 = 878 mg NH4. - Daily loss because of proven nitrification 435 mg NH4. Left to explain is 443 mg NH4 per day. I suspect that some will disappear by Anammox in the DSB but let us look at the worst scenario - all added and produced NH4 will be nitrified. With the best nitrification process - the Kaldnes moving bed with K5 carrier - around 400 mg NH4-N (514 mg NH4) will be removed daily and m2 area. 1 m2 area K5 is around 1 L carrier. Less than 1.5 L K5 in the right type of moving bed filter will nitrify my NH4 load completely. I do not use this technique - I use a fast flowing foam filter as nitrification filter.

Later on - in the fall - I will take away the nitrification filter and measure if my NH3/NH4 concentration in my DT rise.

Note that 878 mg NH4 in 300 liter correspond to an addition of around 3 mg/L NH4 a day.

Even if I am 100% wrong in my calculations I will get a nightmares of these figures - I hope that someone finds some faults in my calculations - it would be better for my nervs

I state before that I think that the nitrification rates are low in a normal aquarium. I still think that. If I look at possible area for nitrification in my aquaria - I will not stop at 10 m2. 1.5 m2 Kaldnes K5 manage this load.

This is very interesting and I will try to follow it up later in the fall

Sincerely Lasse

I do not doubt that nitrification rates are low, but I do not understand how one can account for all places N goes from foods that is not nitrate. Organics of many sorts, organism tissues (from bacteria to fish), etc.

 

[buruskeee]

So Glass box - add water (no rock or dry rock) and soft coral or the "refugium" first.

My favorite LFS actually recommends starting day 1 with easy hardy soft or LPS to help consume the ammonia. Although with live rock.

 

[Lasse]

I do not doubt that nitrification rates are low, but I do not understand how one can account for all places N goes from foods that is not nitrate. Organics of many sorts, organism tissues (from bacteria to fish), etc.

I t hink that I in my post have done a type of mass balance of the organic N that will be mineralised in my aquarium. If I look at the daily production of NH4 -N by fish and bacteria - 878 mg NH4 => 682 mg NH4-N. It means that the same amount of organic-N must have been mineralised At least half of the amount mineralised organic N by fish and bacteria shows up as NO3-N for further transport as N2 out from the aquarium (when my denitrification works). The other half of the organic N that have been mineralised to NH3/NH4-N takes other pathways because the free NH3/NH4 in my aquarium is around 0.03 mg/L => around 0.023 mg/L NH3/NH4 - N (standing stock mass balance around 300*0.023=7 mg NH3/NH4-N)

This means that around 440 mg NH3/NH4 (around 350 NH3/NH4-N) take other pathways like: gassing out by the skimmer as NH3-N, converted by the anammox process from NH4-N to N2 or/and taken up as NH4-N by photosynthetic organism (ZOOX and other Algae) Some NH4-N may be nitrified but denitrified in other places than my DSB too,

I´ll think that I also have proven that in my aquaria that the mineralisation of organic N is mainly from old organic matter - not from the daily food input. My food input may accounts for only about 1/4 of the total mineralization of organic N on a daily base 3/4 of the mineralisation comes from "old" organic N

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

I do not doubt that nitrification rates are low, but I do not understand how one can account for all places N goes from foods that is not nitrate. Organics of many sorts, organism tissues (from bacteria to fish), etc.

Another perspective if we assume the mass balance is correct, the system is dying, generating more nitrogen than is being brought in by daily feeding. Maybe carbon starvation is driving the generation of excess nitrogen or the error in the mass balance calculation is large.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Is it a fish (shark tank) or a coral tank you are discussing? Whit my experiences in large public aquarium - I would not put my name on such recommendation. At least in the start - IMO - its necessary with either sand filters (backwashed often) or trickling filter even if it is a huge predominated coral tank.

Sincerely Lasse

Out of curiosity, why would we need to put something on a large reef tank in a public aquarium that we wouldn’t need to put in a smaller aquarium? I would never put a sand filter or trickle filter on a 1600l tank I set up for a client.

If there is live rock and algae in the tank when started, what would be different?

 

[SDchris]

There was slight paradigm shortly after 2000ish where those ole skool bioball filters were deemed “Nitrate factories” and pulled off of most folks reef tanks in favor of better equipment, skimmers et ….
… has nitrate definitively been proven to inhibit coral growth above certain levels?

How about a different perspective with an old school analogy.
Back 10 or 20 years when live rock and DSB's were all the rage there were 2 common events.
1. it would take 6 - 10 months before acropora type corals would start to grow well. Prior to that in the first 6 - 10 months they would grow slowly, brown out, stn/rtn........ Yet during this early period, NH4, NO3 and PO4 would all test in acceptable ranges.
So the million dollar question is, during that early period what was causing the slow growth and other problems? ( it certainly wasn't any testable N & P levels )
And further more, what ever reason you come to, could that same reason return at a later period in time? (see point 2)
2. Over longer time scales tanks go through periods of good and bad times. You see this in tanks journals where people say things are booming, followed six months later by complaints of cyano, stn slower growth..... then a few months later things are booming again......repeat, repeat.

Hypothesis: The coral might not be N limited but the filter might be. If the negative effects of that filter (see point 1) are causing reduced growth, could adding more N change the filter behaviour ( think going from first 6 months to after 6 months) and thereby indirectly change growth rates. More importantly, is that change temporary (see point 2)? merely creating a false illusion of doing good.

Is nitrate a problem? IMO no. The problem is the recycling and cyclic nature of the filters we create and how they are managed.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, that’s the thought. If the addition order is front end loaded with nutrient consumers as opposed to nutrient producers, one can forget about nitrifiers as a needed thing. They will certainly happen, but aren’t needed.

This I agree with - and disagree with. In either case - it's kind of semantics, right? In your case, you're using coral etc, as nitrifies (it is still organisms 'processing' nitrate'). It would not work with a FOWLER type tank, I have always had the theory that the more coral, etc added initially - the less need for 'cycling'. I would not think that for a beginner aquarist, that this would be a feasible method - 1. cost. 2. People want fish - and it's hard to tell how much coral it takes for a given fish load. Just my thoughts

 

[MnFish1]

Out of curiosity, why would we need to put something on a large reef tank in a public aquarium that we wouldn’t need to put in a smaller aquarium? I would never put a sand filter or trickle filter on a 1600l tank I set up for a client.

If there is live rock and algae in the tank when started, what would be different?

Many people have used live rock upfront - and failed 'a cycle'. though with a low bioload it should work - it often does not