New Nitrifying Bacteria Experiment.

[Garf]

Algae/other items. Plus - If it continues that the unlit rock does not keep up with the lit rock - it also goes against the hypothesis of some that nitrification bacteria cover every surface equally - OR - at least the other photosynthetic organisms on 'lit rock' do more.

BTW - To my view - and will see later today - the Seachem Alert (which is supposedly measuring 'free NH3' - has started to turn lighter (more yellow) than the API total Nitrogen tests suggest. PS - From now on - I will also be testing Nitrates.

The algae may be releasing exudates which could be picked up by the total ammonia test, but not the badge, maybe. Amino acids specifically. These exudates can fuel heterotrophic growth which may also play a role.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Algae/other items. Plus - If it continues that the unlit rock does not keep up with the lit rock - it also goes against the hypothesis of some that nitrification bacteria cover every surface equally - OR - at least the other photosynthetic organisms on 'lit rock' do more.

BTW - To my view - and will see later today - the Seachem Alert (which is supposedly measuring 'free NH3' - has started to turn lighter (more yellow) than the API total Nitrogen tests suggest. PS - From now on - I will also be testing Nitrates.

Was your sump keeps dark also?

 

[MnFish1]

Was your sump keeps dark also?

The rock in the 'dark tank' - was always in the dark. The rock in the 'lit tank' was always in the light

 

[sixty_reefer]

The rock in the 'dark tank' - was always in the dark. The rock in the 'lit tank' was always in the light

I got a theory for why the rock from a lit tank could have more filtration power than the one from the sump.

I think if you had done both in the dark but still using rock from the display and rock from the sump. Your display rock would still have more nitrifying bacteria than the one from the sump.
Reason is the heterotrophic bacteria is responsible for decomposing dead organisms in our tanks, during the process nh4 is produced and nitrifying bacteria will be in bigger numbers in close proximity to were Heterotrophic bacteria is at work. I can observe this behaviour in the current experience I’m doing where Heterotrophic bacteria breakdown phytoplankton in to basic elements inside a reactor, one of the observations I’ve seen was production of nh4 from the vessel where all happens. I wouldn’t be surprised the reason my experience was successful at removing photosynthetic dinoflagellates was due to a explosion of herbivore bacteria.

edited: in conclusion I think your rock already came super charged from your display and the light may not be doing a difference regarding nitrifying bacteria. This could explain why @Coxey81 rock took so long to process nh4, probably most of the nitrifying bacteria was in the display

 

[MnFish1]

I got a theory for why the rock from a lit tank could have more filtration power than the one from the sump.

I think if you had done both in the dark but still using rock from the display and rock from the sump. Your display rock would still have more nitrifying bacteria than the one from the sump.
Reason is the heterotrophic bacteria is responsible for decomposing dead organisms in our tanks, during the process nh4 is produced and nitrifying bacteria will be in bigger numbers in close proximity to were Heterotrophic bacteria is at work. I can observe this behaviour in the current experience I’m doing where Heterotrophic bacteria breakdown phytoplankton in to basic elements inside a reactor, one of the observations I’ve seen was production of nh4 from the vessel where all happens. I wouldn’t be surprised the reason my experience was successful at removing photosynthetic dinoflagellates was due to a explosion of herbivore bacteria.

edited: in conclusion I think your rock already came super charged from your display and the light may not be doing a difference regarding nitrifying bacteria. This could explain why @Coxey81 rock took so long to process nh4, probably most of the nitrifying bacteria was in the display

Yes - I think the second reason is 'the one'. I also think there are photosynthetic organisms on the rock from the tank - that are also using ammonia. Thusfar - I have had no bloom

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes - I think the second reason is 'the one'. I also think there are photosynthetic organisms on the rock from the tank - that are also using ammonia. Thusfar - I have had no bloom

Keep an eye for the bloom after the first rinse, that’s wend my happened

 

[sixty_reefer]

Hows it looking tonight @MnFish1

 

[MnFish1]

Results after 24 hours - the trend continues - the rock from the lit tank (less than @sixty_reefer) - shows further reduction - down to .5 ppm. The dark tank down 10 1 ppm. No Nitrite. No nitrate . SG slightly higher - a little evaporation - Temp and other params the same. The sachem alert is far lighter in the Lit tank than the dark tank. PS - thought the nitrites look different - they are identical outside the picture

EDIT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY IN TANK 2 is 1.027 - not 1.037

 

[sixty_reefer]

Results after 24 hours - the trend continues - the rock from the lit tank (less than @sixty_reefer) - shows further reduction - down to .5 ppm. The dark tank down 10 1 ppm. No Nitrite. No nitrate . SG slightly higher - a little evaporation - Temp and other params the same. The sachem alert is far lighter in the Lit tank than the dark tank. PS - thought the nitrites look different - they are identical outside the picture

EDIT THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY IN TANK 2 is 1.027 - not 1.037

That’s really good stuff so far, looking forward to see how they perform in the next phase. How’s your arm doing?

 

[MnFish1]

That’s really good stuff so far, looking forward to see how they perform in the next phase. How’s your arm doing?

Going back tomorrow - thanks - pretty good!!!!!

 

[MnFish1]

Day 4 Results

Tank 2 - the Lit tank - has 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite and 20ppm Nitrate. Other parameters the same
Tank 1 - the Dark Tank - has 0.5 ammonia, 0 nitrite and 5 ppm Nitrate

Note - the pictures are slightly darker today than in 'real life'. The numbers on the chart are accurate.

 

[MnFish1]

From today's results -

1. I think we can say the lit tank - which contained exactly the same amount of rock - did better with ammonia processing than the rock from the dark tank.
2. The Seachem alert - and the API tests are pretty much agreeing - at one point I thought the Seachem alert was reacting 'more quickly' than the total ammonia test.
3. My guess is that tomorrow everything will be at 0 - and will then proceed with repeating the test again - to see if 2 ppm Ammonia is processed in 24 hours.

 

[sixty_reefer]

We

From today's results -

1. I think we can say the lit tank - which contained exactly the same amount of rock - did better with ammonia processing than the rock from the dark tank.
2. The Seachem alert - and the API tests are pretty much agreeing - at one point I thought the Seachem alert was reacting 'more quickly' than the total ammonia test.
3. My guess is that tomorrow everything will be at 0 - and will then proceed with repeating the test again - to see if 2 ppm Ammonia is processed in 24 hours.

wouldn’t be better to cut it by half? As your rock is averaging around 1ppm a day

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

From today's results -

1. I think we can say the lit tank - which contained exactly the same amount of rock - did better with ammonia processing than the rock from the dark tank.

Makes sense to me. Algae growing on it will take up ammonia, likely even before you can see much algae..

I add macroalgae into QT tanks for that purpose.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Makes sense to me. Algae growing on it will take up ammonia, likely even before you can see much algae..

I add macroalgae into QT tanks for that purpose.

If the algae was consuming ammonia shouldn’t the no3 in lit tank be lower? At the moment it’s looking to be 4x the dark tank

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If the algae was consuming ammonia shouldn’t the no3 in lit tank be lower? At the moment it’s looking to be 4x the dark tank

Maybe, but I'm not sure how trustworthy nitrate readings are, especially when there may be nitrite present. 0.05 ppm nitrite can read as 5 ppm nitrate with some kits. I'm not sure the nitrite kit can detect that.

That said, I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that the rocks were different to begin with.

 

[MnFish1]

We

wouldn’t be better to cut it by half? As your rock is averaging around 1ppm a day

I am going to repeat what I did exactly - 1) it will tell if the bacteria on the rock 'multiplied' (on each side). 2) It will then be a 'replicate'. If it seems like it needs to be lowered - will do that after the next time.

 

[MnFish1]

Maybe, but I'm not sure how trustworthy nitrate readings are, especially when there may be nitrite present. 0.05 ppm nitrite can read as 5 ppm nitrate with some kits. I'm not sure the nitrite kit can detect that.

That said, I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that the rocks were different to begin with.

The rocks were 'different' from the start.
Tank 1 - was 5 year old rock from a dark sump. Tank 2 - was at least 5 years old - from a lit Display tank. The results seem to Echo the other experiment done by @Coxey81 and @sixty_reefer

 

[Aqua Man]

Tank 2 - the Lit tank - has 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite and 20ppm Nitrate. Other parameters the same

That is a very nice yellow! It’s rare to actually see that!

 

[MnFish1]

If the algae was consuming ammonia shouldn’t the no3 in lit tank be lower? At the moment it’s looking to be 4x the dark tank

FWIW - the algae on the rock is 'minimal' there is really no 'green algae' to speak of.