New Nitrifying Bacteria Experiment.

[Gregg @ ADP]

Btw I was curious. Why the second tank with rock and no ammonia? I mean I can see the reason for it to. Degree but. I suppose I can also see a reason to keep a 2ppm stock of ammonia and test that as well to see if it spontaneously drops. But I’m not sure either is likely to help. But I might do the ammonia and no rock experiment. Just to document over time whether ammonia will process on its own nd how long it will take. Thanks

So, I hadn’t followed the other stuff too much, but the hypothesis here is that rinsing rock containing saltwater nitrifiers with freshwater negatively impacts that population, correct?

 

[Coxey81]

So, I hadn’t followed the other stuff too much, but the hypothesis here is that rinsing rock containing saltwater nitrifiers with freshwater negatively impacts that population, correct?

My thoughts (or hypothesis) was that it wouldnt effect it enough to cause issues.

 

[MnFish1]

So, I hadn’t followed the other stuff too much, but the hypothesis here is that rinsing rock containing saltwater nitrifiers with freshwater negatively impacts that population, correct?

Yes - but there is no rinsing until after the rock has been shown to be capable of nitrifying - i.e. the first step is the 'control'? Does that make sense?

 

[MnFish1]

I would do one control tank with normal, seasoned rock in an unlit/algae-free tank. Then multiple experimental tanks set up the exact same way with maybe different exposures to freshwater, or maybe different [NH3]…or both, with different experiments…and then see if you can show a linear regression.

BY the way the haha - was because of the linear regression - you made a good suggestion

 

[MnFish1]

SO here are the results from today - from the saltwater tank - as well as the Freshwater tanks

When I put the rocks in the tanks tomorrow - I will post pictures of them! The picture is in the next post

 

[MnFish1]

Here are the results from today - from both the 'rock tank (display) and the others'. The temp has adjusted nicely to 80 in both tanks (experiments) HOWEVER - I did do a water change - and interestingly enough @DrZoidburg shortly after mixing everything up - the API test showed a 0.25 ammonia level (it was probably between 0 and 0.25) - After 2 hours it was back to zero. I double checked the first result. So - to me the test seems accurate

 

[MnFish1]

duplicate

 

[sixty_reefer]

Here are the results from today - from both the 'rock tank (display) and the others'. The temp has adjusted nicely to 80 in both tanks (experiments) HOWEVER - I did do a water change - and interestingly enough @DrZoidburg shortly after mixing everything up - the API test showed a 0.25 ammonia level (it was probably between 0 and 0.25) - After 2 hours it was back to zero. I double checked the first result. So - to me the test seems accurate

Am getting difficulty in downloading the file on my phone, is there any other way you could share the results? Sorry

 

[DrZoidburg]

Here are the results from today - from both the 'rock tank (display) and the others'. The temp has adjusted nicely to 80 in both tanks (experiments) HOWEVER - I did do a water change - and interestingly enough @DrZoidburg shortly after mixing everything up - the API test showed a 0.25 ammonia level (it was probably between 0 and 0.25) - After 2 hours it was back to zero. I double checked the first result. So - to me the test seems accurate

Interesting. I wonder if this is because some fresh salts do have ammonia in them.

 

[MnFish1]

no clue - I use my computer. Sorry bro

 

[MnFish1]

Am getting difficulty in downloading the file on my phone, is there any other way you could share the results? Sorry

How would you suggest - I uploaded the PDF to the site?

 

[MnFish1]

Interesting. I wonder if this is because some fresh salts do have ammonia in them.

My guess is that its related to stirring up the substrate. but it was rapidly cleared

 

[Idech]

Am getting difficulty in downloading the file on my phone, is there any other way you could share the results? Sorry

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thank you

 

[MnFish1]

my guess is stirring up sand etc

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Yes - but there is no rinsing until after the rock has been shown to be capable of nitrifying - i.e. the first step is the 'control'? Does that make sense?

There are a few different angles I might take to test that hypothesis. What I would probably focus on is trying to determine the impact on the population.


Control tank-5 gal tank with x mass of seasoned live rock

Experimental tanks-3 or 4 experimental 5 gal tanks with x mass of seasoned live rock to start

All tanks set up identically, kept in the dark, etc

Trial 1: all tanks get y volume of ammonium added. Test over period of 2-3 days to determine conversion. Presumably, they would all be ~same

Trial 2: control tank untouched. Exp tank 1, rock is washed in FW for 30 seconds…Exp tank 2, rock is washed in FW for 1 minute…Exp tank 3, rock is washed in FW for 3 minutes…Exp tank 4, rock is washed in FW for 5 minutes.

Same volume of ammonium added to each tank, and then test [NH3] over period of time (3 days).

If there is a functional relationship between FW exposure and impact to nitrifier population, we should be able to derive a linear regression from rate of breakdown of NH3+ based on length of time exposed to FW. If there is no real difference in rate of conversion between control and exp groups, then the hypothesis has been disproven.

 

[MnFish1]

There are a few different angles I might take to test that hypothesis. What I would probably focus on is trying to determine the impact on the population.


Control tank-5 gal tank with x mass of seasoned live rock

Experimental tanks-3 or 4 experimental 5 gal tanks with x mass of seasoned live rock to start

All tanks set up identically, kept in the dark, etc

Trial 1: all tanks get y volume of ammonium added. Test over period of 2-3 days to determine conversion. Presumably, they would all be ~same

Trial 2: control tank untouched. Exp tank 1, rock is washed in FW for 30 seconds…Exp tank 2, rock is washed in FW for 1 minute…Exp tank 3, rock is washed in FW for 3 minutes…Exp tank 4, rock is washed in FW for 5 minutes.

Same volume of ammonium added to each tank, and then test [NH3] over period of time (3 days).

If there is a functional relationship between FW exposure and impact to nitrifier population, we should be able to derive a linear regression from rate of breakdown of NH3+ based on length of time exposed to FW. If there is no real difference in rate of conversion between control and exp groups, then the hypothesis has been disproven.

I appreciate your comments - And - I'm not sure I can easily go through each step to accept it or discount it.

Here are 'some' of the problems:

1. Try to get xx amount of equally seasoned live rock
2. You might not have read my plan in the other thread - which pretty - much matches your plan. - which is
3. Use each tank as a control - then
4. perform (what 'should' be less damaging to bateria - and keep repeating same - with more 'potentially damaging' treatments - until there is a non-return of bacteria

 

[MnFish1]

I appreciate your comments - And - I'm not sure I can easily go through each step to accept it or discount it.

Here are 'some' of the problems:

1. Try to get xx amount of equally seasoned live rock
2. You might not have read my plan in the other thread - which pretty - much matches your plan. - which is
3. Use each tank as a control - then
4. perform (what 'should' be less damaging to bateria - and keep repeating same - with more 'potentially damaging' treatments - until there is a non-return of bacteria

PS after that there are other plans

 

[MnFish1]

Experiment 2 - after verifying stable conditions in tanks. Today -

1, I added SW to each tank - SG 1.025.
2, Added 5,2 lbs rock - to each tank;
2a, 5.2 lbs sump/dark rock to tank 1 (@Coxey81)
2b. 5.2 lbs Rock from lit tank - to tank 2 (@sixty_reefer)
3. Noted the water displacement (before and adding the rock) - and it was exactly the same - suggesting that the surface area is quite similar.
4. The total 'water volume' of the tank is 3 gallons. So - I think we're in the ballpark of what others requested in the other thread.
5. See the chart below - the ammonia (which was supposed to arrive today - is not coming until tomorrow) - so - will have another day to test stability. Note the HOB filters have no media inside them - only there to provide aeration.
6. More pictures of the rock, and tests to follow shortly

 

[sixty_reefer]

Experiment 2 - after verifying stable conditions in tanks. Today -

1, I added SW to each tank - SG 1.025.
2, Added 5,2 lbs rock - to each tank;
2a, 5.2 lbs sump/dark rock to tank 1 (@Coxey81)
2b. 5.2 lbs Rock from lit tank - to tank 2 (@sixty_reefer)
3. Noted the water displacement (before and adding the rock) - and it was exactly the same - suggesting that the surface area is quite similar.
4. The total 'water volume' of the tank is 3 gallons. So - I think we're in the ballpark of what others requested in the other thread.
5. See the chart below - the ammonia (which was supposed to arrive today - is not coming until tomorrow) - so - will have another day to test stability. Note the HOB filters have no media inside them - only there to provide aeration.
6. More pictures of the rock, and tests to follow shortly

Looking forward to see it going