Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums

[Aaron Stone]

No, I believe your statement that "ghost feeding is a myth" essentially states that it should not be done, or is pointless at best, which we just established is not true.

As for filtering capacity:

To lose them makes our tanks just like the ones running freshly cycled dry rock minus the benthics, still an active filter

Yes, there is still active filtering, but a newly established tank cannot absorb a nutrient spike anywhere near as well as a healthy established system, which you yourself point out that we no longer have.

 

[brandon429]

a cycled tank demonstrates up to a few ppm oxidation ability, out of the gate. How much spike are you factoring based on measuring these nutrient spikes in prior threads (I'm claiming the downscale of benthics won't occur measurably via ammonia loading, it's too slow)

 

[Aaron Stone]

Are you going to tell me that the filtration of a newly cycled tank is as good as, or better than a healthy established tank?

 

[brandon429]

Sure it is, ppm oxidized is ppm oxidized. How many ppm do your declining benthics commute to the tank? Maturation isn't the issue, free ammonia control sure is.

We know when to start stocking off ppm tested and verified, withholding feed for four mos won't change that ability new or old tank even though new has less organics stored.


Score card so far
Ghost feeding is still seen as required by the masses, and it's also not possible to skip cycle a tank

Bacteria does as aquarists say I never thought y'all would be an easy sell, just wanted to show nobody linked anything to prove the null, and that was justified by me not linking the threads for my point, despite the tank work we already do. I've posted links in others tanks for seeing bacteria in a different way at least, different from the bandwagon.

Frankly I'm amazed anyone believes still you can stop a filter from running by withholding feed a few mos. Look how hard it was too get them to rinse their sandbeds though...

 

[reeferfoxx]

 

[Aaron Stone]

I believe a couple people actually jumped in with their own experience contradicting your point, probably better than random linking.

Indeed, and done.

 

[brandon429]

We got gifs w no links, noted lol. Not even tank work links from you guys showing feeding was required. Easy out for ya ~

Of course you two are opting out! Reefer we barely got you to consider mos ago that live rock can be moved without losing bac.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Not even tank work links from you guys showing feeding was required. Easy out for ya ~

Show us a non forum link suggesting personal reef tanks are self sustaining without any food source and we will provide links for you? But only if you prove us wrong. Otherwise your suggestion is hypothetical without substance.

 

[Brew12]

you are right, nitrifying bacteria are slow grower compared to other bacteria, that's why i consider vital for our systems to maintain constant population, or at least to make slow changes so the system adapts.



Bacteria will die, population will decrease until food source = growth rate, new equilibrium is reached. In open system like our aquarium, other bacteria may become prevalent vs nitrifying if N become rate limiting. Nitrifying bacteria will not find new food source, but other bacteria that were outnumbered or outcompete by nitrifying bacteria will see their population increase if there is an opportunity. If no other food source are available, bacterial level will decrease, but it will never reach zero population (sterile environment).

The time needed to return to a fully active, if you mean the time needed to reach back the intitial bacterial population, it depends how much bacteria remains in the system. The worst case would be similar to restart a full cycle. When you start from dry rock, the bacterai comes from the water, the environment, the bottled bacteria, that's why it takes time.

for exemple, depending of our fermentation process, lag phase can be a few hours up to a few days, depending of the seeding of the media, systems conditions, volume of the system. Larger systems like waste treatment can take weeks / months to reach their full performance.

i never had to 'ghost feed' but it's something i would do if need be jsut to keep my system stable.

I'm hitting a mental block with a few things that I need to work out.

Such as.... How does the bacteria in a bottle actually stay alive and ready to respond almost instantly after sitting on a shelf for a year.
Why does a mature tank undergo a much smaller "mini-cycle" than a young tank with identical bio loads. For instance, if you take 2 tanks with 5 identical fish with one being 2 years old and the other being 6 months old, wouldn't they have almost identical bacteria colonies? So why would the younger tank experience a much larger cycle than the older tank if 3 identical fish were added?

Still feel like I am missing something. Hope you don't mind if I pick your mind about these things later after I give it some thought.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Of course you two are opting out! Reefer we barely got you to consider mos ago that live rock can be moved without losing bac.

Ya but my tank is with dry rock and didnt go through a conventional cycle.

 

[brandon429]

to opt out means other people ask the questions, and still not post any links Reefer. those dry rocks can be moved just the same. your dead horse gif means we got done, we didn't get anywhere agreed. I was asking for proof from the masses, but got dodged by them demanding proof of my claim.

For the next readers, Id like to ask nicely not to condition your links on mine, just simply post what you can find that says withholding feed will downscale massive surface area to the point oxidation no longer happens, just that part alone will sell me.

 

[reeferfoxx]

to opt out means other people ask the questions, and still not post any links Reefer.

Then you opted out the second you started this thread.

 

[reeferfoxx]

was asking for proof from the masses, but got dodged by them demanding proof of my claim.

I made a post earlier with a link. It discusses the nitrogen cycle and how the bacteria needs to be fed.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Link:
http://www.foundationsofbiology.com/

The argument is that with a basic knowledge of biology one concludes ghost feeding is prudent. not that it is required. The distinction is pretty large between the two.

It's pretty clear that without a food source like 'biological fixation', you would be limiting nitrifying bacteria. Without ghost feeding you limit not just bacteria but other organisms that support bacteria. Atmospheric fixation doesn't quite happen in our homes the way it does in nature. To retain the biologic balance that was established, it only makes sense(to me) to ghost feed without other sources of ammonia?

http://www.biology-pages.info/N/NitrogenCycle.html

 

[Aaron Stone]

Link:
http://reef2reef.com/threads/ghost-feeding-is-a-myth-perpetuated-only-in-web-forums.268349/page-2
and a quote from that link:

My established 240g sat fallow for about four months (about two years ago). I did not ghost feed, but did dose ammonia prior to adding fish, just to see how fast it would process. It took about 48hrs when it originally took about 18 after cycling. I'm no scientist, but it seems like something happened there.

http://reef2reef.com/threads/ghost-feeding-is-a-myth-perpetuated-only-in-web-forums.268349/page-3

and to quote from that link

Well since we are quoting largely anecdotal "evidence" anyway, I left my tang tank fallow 83 days while treating my 10 tangs, 3 angels, and two wrasse in a large qt tank. This is obviously a very well stocked tank. I ghost fed maybe twice in that period which I am sure did virtually nothing. It fed my shrimp which was my goal. I simply forgot to ghost feed I am busy as heck these days and have 4 tanks.

Anyway, my biofilter sucesfully kept nitrates around 10-30 with monthly water changes of around 40% pre-fallow period. Upon re-adding my fish my nitrates went rose from 5-10 just before re-addition to 40-50 within only two weeks.

There are some links for ya

 

[brandon429]

ok let me check them just went on break. im looking for wording that shows the ability for high surface area inclusions to go basically back to sterile without assistance from us, while being kept wet the whole time, and in extremely high cross contamination environs. brb

after six seconds of inspection I can see reefer has googled "nitrogen cycle" and based the whole premise on that

not sold.

did anyone read my sand rinse thead? that was reef heresy till we got to six pages.

everyone was just sure you couldn't rinse a sandbed and it still conduct nitrification...

Not any links provided here addresses the cause that ghost feeding is required, because those links don't speak of myriad alt feed supports that's largely been dismissed here anyway.

you guys should let someone else post 1/10th on subject links, ya'll took leave already but I don't mind redoing. we already work tanks head to toe, by the page, knowing the nature of the bac we hope to preserve. not having to ghost feed is just the same biology as skip cycling, like where we move tanks to conventions etc and not have to start 30 days earlier. its all a tie-in

41 is the highest number of alerts ive ever had so that's awesome, this type of back and forth is good science fun.

 

[Aaron Stone]

So now our target is sterile? This bar gets higher every time we jump over it.

So first it was showing that ghost feeding is actually not useless: done
Second giving links showing that filtration capacity decreased with out ghost feeding: done
Now we have to prove sterility:

I am done

 

[reeferfoxx]

All I've gathered from this thread is that a dirty room, ashy skin and maybe some cat hair could potentially start a cycle within a 12 month period, right?

 

[brandon429]

Reefer you guys are exhausted its ok man, we're deflecting heavy now ill be curious to see what other posters among the 40 reading have to offer.


sterility matters because if its not sterile, there's still nitrifiers, due to inclustions and communities we've covered, and + active surface area, its my whole point. you'd have to be sterile for it to stop filtering.

we get the results posted in our tank work threads by knowing you don't have to support bacteria once established, the ecosystem does it alone. this is still a good a viable subject either way, glad to have the interactions. gets thoughts going. maybe we have curbed at least one ghost feeder, so that one day they'll be able to clean their tank in good conscience too (this all ties together, what bac can tolerate)

 

[reeferfoxx]

Reefer you guys are exhausted its ok man, we're deflecting heavy now ill be curious to see what other posters among the 40 reading have to offer.


sterility matters because if its not sterile, there's still nitrifiers, due to inclustions and communities we've covered, and + active surface area, its my whole point. you'd have to be sterile for it to stop filtering. I get that you are done this time Aaron, we will keep moving those theads into the tens of pages of examples of bac control alone.

we get the results posted in our tank work threads by knowing you don't have to support bacteria once established, the ecosystem does it alone.

Are we getting into bacterial endospores and how these things travel and float thru the air? I think we understand how life works but we dont understand is how you think life can be sustained without a food source?