Cycling with Dr. Tim's Day 3.

[jda]

You will start to lose bacteria in a few days if you stop the ammonia. Period. Don't let people on the internet throw away over fifty years of actual science and study from real pHd who have written books and stuff.

Does it matter? Probably not, if not too long. If you still have some bacteria spread out and established, then they can spread pretty quickly. Probably fine if there is some patience and brains working. I would still dose some ammonia right up until you get fish.

In truth, this is one of the many issues with cycling. First, people mix and misunderstand the terms. Second, as long as the person is even half smart and uses any bit of patience or caution, then nature works it out for them and everything is fine... which is why clowns can claim victory for some imaginary methods of this or that when they had nothing to do with anything and it was going to work out anyway. You have 100 different ways to do it because they all work out in the end... and many who had one method works thinks that this is the only way. It is too bad that a small impatient few have messed up really badly giving every imaginable way also a few black marks and scars, as well.

As for dormant bacteria. I have only every heard Dr. Tim mention this as to why his bacteria live in a bottle. Many actual scientists not looking to profit have issue with this for varying reasons - not that they don't live, just his explanation. I stay out of this since I don't need bottled bacteria. Even if he is right, a bottle is not a tank and non-live things in the real work get consumed or decay. Spores are different and people confuse those too.

 

[Spare time]

Just wait for ammonia and nitrite to drop. Its that simple. These threads get way too overcomplicated and I am not sure why. If you are worried about the bacteria dropping in populations, just add like a drop of ammonia each day or a pinch of fish food as that won't hurt or slow things down (it will keep the bacteria growing as jda mentioned). If you haven't dumped the whole bottle of bacteria in, do so.

 

[jda]

They can survive and be born off aerosols in the natural environment alone.

Ammonia and bottles of bacteria just expedite the process

@brandon429 might have the data on it stashed away though

This is gonna make me sound like a jerk, but maybe you all need to read some books and actual science instead of believing a guy like that. Most of what he says was going to work out anyway, only he gets most of the actual reasons wrong.

For this particular case, we are talking about actual living bacteria in a tank that would die without the ammonia. Sure, the bacteria will grow back and would have grown anyway. Everything will work out. Don't mix the two... these bacteria that I am talking about grew with the ammonia and will die without it. I know that he likely lacks the experience and knowledge to talk on different levels, or maybe has chosen not to, but they are different things.

 

[Spare time]

This is gonna make me sound like a jerk, but maybe you all need to read some books and actual science instead of believing a guy like that. Most of what he says was going to work out anyway, only he gets most of the actual reasons wrong.

For this particular case, we are talking about actual living bacteria in a tank that would die without the ammonia. Sure, the bacteria will grow back and would have grown anyway. Everything will work out. Don't mix the two... these bacteria that I am talking about grew with the ammonia and will die without it. I know that he likely lacks the experience and knowledge to talk on different levels, or maybe has chosen not to, but they are different things.

PS I have always meant to say that your profile pic is one of my favorites on this site lol

 

[Jekyl]

This is gonna make me sound like a jerk, but maybe you all need to read some books and actual science instead of believing a guy like that. Most of what he says was going to work out anyway, only he gets most of the actual reasons wrong.

For this particular case, we are talking about actual living bacteria in a tank that would die without the ammonia. Sure, the bacteria will grow back and would have grown anyway. Everything will work out. Don't mix the two... these bacteria that I am talking about grew with the ammonia and will die without it. I know that he likely lacks the experience and knowledge to talk on different levels, or maybe has chosen not to, but they are different things.

Here's one study that they lasted at least a month without issue

Experiment: Does nitrifying bacteria survive a month without ammonia or other supplementation

Hypothesis: Though potentially delayed, a tank that was able to process 2 ppm ammonia within a day - will continue to be able to do so after not being 'fed' for 4 weeks. Rationale: There has been, for some time, been a debate as to whether nitrifying bacteria can 'surivive', go dormant, or...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[jda]

As for adding excess nutrients with ammonia, all that you are adding is nitrogen. It is the nitrogen cycle. The actual cycle is not done until nitrate is turned into nitrogen gas. The cycle should, if done correctly, it removes the nitrogen on the back end. It is a net wash. There are no phosphorus in ammonia.

 

[Jekyl]

@Lasse have you done anything to experiment on these results?

 

[jda]

Here's one study that they lasted at least a month without issue

Experiment: Does nitrifying bacteria survive a month without ammonia or other supplementation

Hypothesis: Though potentially delayed, a tank that was able to process 2 ppm ammonia within a day - will continue to be able to do so after not being 'fed' for 4 weeks. Rationale: There has been, for some time, been a debate as to whether nitrifying bacteria can 'surivive', go dormant, or...

www.reef2reef.com

You are again confusing two different things. Established tanks with film algae, micro/macro fauna and many types film and matting bacteria, etc. are not the same as tanks with only nitrifying bacteria. More things use ammonia in established tanks than just nitrifying bacteria - not so in a new tank, until they develop.

In actual studies that looked at just new tanks, they start to die in a few days. Once a tank gets established, then it is hard to measure the difference in what does what.

 

[Jekyl]

Here's one study that they lasted at least a month without issue

Experiment: Does nitrifying bacteria survive a month without ammonia or other supplementation

Hypothesis: Though potentially delayed, a tank that was able to process 2 ppm ammonia within a day - will continue to be able to do so after not being 'fed' for 4 weeks. Rationale: There has been, for some time, been a debate as to whether nitrifying bacteria can 'surivive', go dormant, or...

www.reef2reef.com

@MnFish1 what did your test on this conclude?

 

[jda]

PS I have always meant to say that your profile pic is one of my favorites on this site lol

I have that record in first, second and third state stereo. It took me a long time to get them. I keep them far away from the humidity and salts of my tanks.

 

[jda]

Did you read his thread, or just scan the title ala brandon.

Here is a quote:

Bacteria in a bottle does not necessarily 'last a year'. Some bacteria last a year - nitrifying bacteria not necessarily so. This experiment was designed to answer the multiple questions - if I have nothing in my tank for x weeks - will it re-cycle. Of course - the experimental results are specific to these aquaria - and these rocks. But - there is certainly a suggestion that ROCK ALONE (because there is no filter/sump/skimmer/etc - will maintain its ammonia processing capability

The dude was never trying to see if just nitrifying bacteria would die off, only of an already established ecosystem with established live rock could come back alive after a month.

I think that you have to complete a cycle before there is even a thought of a re-cycle. It appears that his tank actually did a real cycle and not just show low numbers on a test kit after a week, which some people call a cycle. There are enough organics in established live rock to last many months - typical timeline to "cook" them (not with heat like some idiots do) was at least three months.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, there is more in established tanks to process ammonia than just the NITRIFYING BACTERIA that we are talking about here.

 

[brandon429]

There’s a reason nobody produces actual tank threads showing starved cycle bac using a seneye. It’s among things written, but never observed on seneye in reefing.

= starving bacteria is old cycling science, fear based sales science, so that we buy more bac. At no time are fed, inoculated bacteria in a warm moving circulation reef tank in a home at risk of starvation. It took Dr. Reef extreme measures to starve marine bacteria and the arrangements that did it was nothing a cycler is ever going to see, especially after adding the initial dose of feed and bacteria.

it’s possible to make hundreds and hundreds of successful cycling threads on the premise reef cycles can’t be starved. Every system turns out able to carry its bio load just fine, even if we extended fallow it after the initial setup

specifically at nano-reef.com, poster dandelion, fallowed for two years barely cycled white dry rock on bottle bac, then load tested it with ammonia and it still moved just fine in 24 hours. There are counter examples to cycle starvation but theyre rare bc most people want to use their rocks.

**page 98-101 MSteven one, in dr reefs bottle bac thread of 100+ pages, is another proof of non starvation. He brought up totally dry rocks no boosting at all in just four months. Only in water, no feed no bac. Cycle starvation is a myth.

 

[Jekyl]

Did you read his thread, or just scan the title ala brandon.

Here is a quote:


The dude was never trying to see if just nitrifying bacteria would die off, only of an already established ecosystem with established live rock could come back alive after a month.

I think that you have to complete a cycle before there is even a thought of a re-cycle. It appears that his tank actually did a real cycle and not just show low numbers on a test kit after a week, which some people call a cycle. There are enough organics in established live rock to last many months - typical timeline to "cook" them (not with heat like some idiots do) was at least three months.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough, there is more in established tanks to process ammonia than just the NITRIFYING BACTERIA that we are talking about here.

Just trying to ask some people who may know better. Instead of just another "I'm right, you're wrong, F you" post.

 

[brandon429]

let me find an actual example one sec. Seeking dr reefs thread, M Steven did it well one sec

Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

I have never seen that documented in twenty years of daily online reefing. Unassisted cycling happens sooner than your time frame, tbd, but I'd have bet the farm it'd take ninety days. I'm so happy to see that Cycling charts were written for freshwater You're providing data for a saltwater...

www.reef2reef.com

MSteven1 provides hidden clues to updated cycling science. Follow his flow posts

his finding withstands scrutiny very well I thought, you’ll see old cycling science proponents seeking weakness in the claims but I think they hold well. His cross contamination controls were very good considering this isn’t a positive pressure bacteria lab he’s working in.

= because reefs can’t starve a cycle, only water and four months is needed to upcycle dry rocks and it’s load tested fairly well and clear I thought

 

[jda]

He put it out there for everybody to read. It is not even two full pages.

Post links and people think that you are unhelpful and want things laid out to them quickly and easily. You lay it out to them and they think that it is a "I'm right and you are wrong" type of deal. I am hear to teach and help the best that I can - no F you to anybody... well maybe one guy who lacks the knowledge to actually help and the self awareness to see the damage that he dismisses.

We have decades of real science by real pHds that have survived the publication process, presenting and restudy at real research institutions... and people choose to believe stuff that would have happened anyway, understood incorrectly and explained even more incorrectly with a seneye along for the ride.

OP - I am out. I hope that you got what you needed. Be smart, keep those bacteria alive until you get some fish. As the ecosystem development, most of this will not matter anyway.

 

[brandon429]

I find in 100% of cycling cases it helps the animals coming to relay fish disease preps from jays forum in place of all concerns over cycling bacteria. We are in the evolution stages of new vs old cycling models, I get my truths via the work threads we produce and track out several months in cycling threads. I was expecting cycling issues to at least comprise a few percent of bio load carry issues for new tanks, I find it comprises 0% and fish disease mention and planning is what we need to aim new cyclers into


I haven’t found any common means people cycle reef tank rocks to not work, quickly, discerned by reading many seneye log uploads on seneye threads

 

[taricha]

Nitrifying biofilms do lose capability over time. But it's slow, and it can be recovered quickly.
I've seen one source ballpark it at 1% loss per day.
This paper...
Long-term starvation and subsequent recovery of nitrifiers in aerated submerged fixed-bed biofilm reactors

found "during long starvation periods and resulted in half-life times of up to 34 and 28 days, respectively. Extended anaerobic conditions caused the half-life for AOB to decrease to 21 days. In comparison, the activity decay of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) tended to be slightly faster."

These are not that different than the above ballpark guide: loss of 50% in ~30 days not all that different from 1% per day.


Would you be justified in giving a little feeding during an otherwise fallow period? Yes.

Would you be justified in saying a month of nitrifying ability loss can be recovered in a few days so feeding isn't necessary? Sure.

Both are true.

 

[brandon429]

We are able to find documentarian using reef tank settings that starvation doesn’t occur, and the only documentation that it does occur doesn’t come from reef tank studies so far. Open topped reef tanks, fed and inoculated in a home vs a lab held in isolation is a big deal context need

in a home, food is getting in, it’s why at month four stevens bacteria were active, vs starved.

add this, the hunt for starvable cycling bac, to the list of things seneye users could be writing about with their $190 meters they don’t need any longer on their display tanks.

there’s a reason none of our ongoing year ten cycling work threads don’t factor in a risk of starvation, and instead focuses quickly on disease preps. It’s because in reefing there aren’t any bio load fail-to-carry examples and because the disease forum is so busy each day with new entrants.

 

[jda]

Nitrifying biofilms do lose capability over time. But it's slow, and it can be recovered quickly.
I've seen one source ballpark it at 1% loss per day.
This paper...
Long-term starvation and subsequent recovery of nitrifiers in aerated submerged fixed-bed biofilm reactors

found "during long starvation periods and resulted in half-life times of up to 34 and 28 days, respectively. Extended anaerobic conditions caused the half-life for AOB to decrease to 21 days. In comparison, the activity decay of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) tended to be slightly faster."

These are not that different than the above ballpark guide: loss of 50% in ~30 days not all that different from 1% per day.


Would you be justified in giving a little feeding during an otherwise fallow period? Yes.

Would you be justified in saying a month of nitrifying ability loss can be recovered in a few days so feeding isn't necessary? Sure.

Both are true.

You need to stop with all of this old-cycle stuff... aka, science, logic, experience and all of that. Ain't nobody got time for that. Where is your seneye?

I have some books that say 3-5% a day in a fresh, new tank. Whatever the number, it happens.

By stopping the ammonia you also miss opportunity to further develop and add a buffer zone.

While there is little doubt that these bacteria can reproduce quickly, gills can be permanently harmed even faster.

 

[taricha]

By stopping the ammonia you also miss opportunity to further develop and add a buffer zone.

Speaking of new science changing my perspectives... looking at some experiments showing the microbiome and tracking how biofilm community adjusts to a new nutrient regime has changed my thought on fallow-feeding. I don't think I'd do just ammonia anymore.

If I just feed ammonia during a fallow/curing period , then I'm not really prepping that biofilm for what it is going to be when I start feeding fish food.
So if I do ghost feed some material in the future, I'm going to do tiny amounts of a food that looks a lot like my normal fish food. The nitrifiers will still get their ammonia, but the rest of the community (and the vast majority of the biofilm community is not nitrifiers) can get a head start in adjusting and moving closer to stable during that fallow/curing period.

The old days of decomposing a bit of shrimp in the tank might have been a better approach than the current controlled dosing of ammonia drops in that respect.