Jump to content
Coral Vue Hydros

Ammonia processing rate of established tank?


dandelion

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if anybody has any idea? When we start a new tank we wait until the tank can process 1ppm of ammonia within 24 hours. I've always thought this is a heck of a bioload. Do established tank really have such a big bioload to process?

 

I have a pico that has been running for almost 2 years now. Things don't seem to be thriving too much anymore after I removed the sand bed a few months ago, and I am getting algae everywhere. I moved all my corals and snails from the tank and housed them in my bigger tank for the time being. I just dosed 1ppm of ammonia to it this morning. Will report back tomorrow with the findings. My bet is by the same time tomorrow there will still be ammonia and nitrite present. I just can't imagine the few frags of corals putting out such a huge bioload.

Link to comment

very helpful topic we'll link to our cycling thread which involves ammonia detailing

 

did you test and make the pico water 1 ppm after your ammonia additions, or did you add from a 1 ppm soln into the pico, that's first clarifier was wondering

 

yes the 1 ppm is usually above typical bioloads only going off the sheer numbers who cycle that amnt, then input a bunch of fish (tangs) and other bioloads especially in fish only setups/eel setups where the fish load is 100x that of a normal tank with clowns and a goby. the scaling of a pico reef really changes things due to surface area changes. I feel that's why Dr Tim doesn't say his 1-2ppm cycling is limited only to reef tanks, it covers all marine setups in my opinion and from online posts.

 

 

Depending on the live rock I expect   ammonia movement within 24 hours.

 

 

 

a pico reef of 1 or 2 running gallons rarely carries any type of measurable bioloading on hobby test kits in my opinion. corals wont exude a measurable amnt and neither would a goby among any sort of active surface area within the pico imo. that means your test automatically exposes this pico to orders higher digestion needs than it was adapted to during its run time. You are testing ghost feeding requirements in a profound yet simple way. we can milk this for details bigtime heh

 

 

 

also, can you run more than one ammonia test per grouping, not using the same test. take a sample somewhere for confirms or bum an alternate name brand test kit just if lucky possible. we need api + not api as an ideal to eliminate confounds in my opinion. api alone w do if the alt is not possible. if there are still measures left in 24 hours of ammonia ill be surprised, and pending pics id have to assume the live rock presence is very small compared to tank dimensions, not like 5lbs per gallon or anything.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, brandon429 said:

very helpful topic we'll link to our cycling thread which involves ammonia detailing

 

did you test and make the pico water 1 ppm after your ammonia additions, or did you add from a 1 ppm soln into the pico, that's first clarifier was wondering...

 

Great reply! Thank you for pointing out the few things to clarify:

1. I added ammonia to the tank until the tank water tested 1ppm.

2. My tank holds about 5 gallon of water (with rocks and equipment in) and I have about 5 pounds of live rocks. Maybe slightly less because I remember leaving out some rubble when I cracked the rocks to aquascape. That was almost 2 years ago. I do have about a cup size of Seachem Matrix in the back chamber so that should have more than made up for it.

3. I only have API test kit. I may be able to save a sample and bring it to a local petsmart for a free test, although I believe those tests are designed for freshwater?

 

And here is a picture of my tank when it was at its best. You can see why I removed the sand bed

9CBD4320-5731-4088-8E76-C8C7B3E24568_zps:

 

Link to comment

I completely recall that now from our thread a few mos ago now that I see it, another thing I like there is those corals aren't frag nubs. they're hungry, they command more food and more export and more ion suppt than a nubbin tank. nice

  • Like 1
Link to comment

on the testing verification not sure if they have the marine specific ones there, but eyeball this calculator and Id be curious to know if what you had to input in order to get to 1 ppm on the api is roughly equivalent to the amnts this thing spits out. you have to know your starting ammonia concentration of soln before it was added to the tank to make 1ppm. some sources may not list percentages on the bottle not sure but this is a neat way to alt calibrate your api test in my opinion

 

http://www.fishforums.net/aquarium-calculator.htm

 

hey also im seeing they've added in the middle portion of the page, a live rock predictor lol you can verify that too apparently after you get your oxidation results in 24 hours. you are about to live time test the digital calcs so many use.

 

Link to comment

Not even 11 hours in and this is the result I got:

 

0299FB24-9E0A-45A7-AA73-694A03BC712D_zps

 

Left tube is my control sample from another established tank. Middle is ammonia, which shows somewhere between 0.25ppm or 0.5ppm. Right is nitrite, which is obviously 0. From this trend I'm pretty sure by tomorrow morning it will read all zero.

 

Since March I have been slowly moving corals out of this pico, not to mention my clown jumped. So the bioload has been steadily reducing. Either the bacteria can thrive on low nutrient input or they went dormant only to wake on a moment's notice.

 

Oh and btw my other tank still refuses to cycle, even after adding more rocks. I'm going to drain it, let everything dry out, then put water back in again. If that doesn't work maybe I'll chuck the tank.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

24-hour results are in. I think it is safe to say the tank retained its 1ppm/24 hour rate after almost 2 years since cycle.

A3B96E9E-67CF-4321-83B9-8322D07C4F6D_zps

 

Now the question begs: Did it gain any processing rate? So I dosed to 2ppm just now. Will report back in the next 2 days.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

linked to our cycling thread on R2R really well done. you  have a nice working api too agreed/admitted/rejoice and clone it heh.

 

 

You are featuring on a mini scale test some pretty big biological tenets. we mostly get to rave-post about them, and rarely get to test it in action.

 

 

 

 

we're still dealing with excess surface area ime, and if we stopped all feeding whatsoever for six months I predict it w still process ammonia, forever, until hydration is pulled.   ghost feeding is for macro animals we don't want to starve, bacteria don't need it, they're getting food always and need only hydration.

 

 

 

 

 

after testing is done here I wish so badly you'd quit feeding it (no corals left in to starve, a rocks and sand test) keep it topped off, don't even care if its heated or circulated, and then digest test the bac after several mos. that's just microbiology out front with a test like that. you can easily easily easily write a great article from those findings. NR needs one of them. people who make their tanks fallow for ich care and prevention really benefit from what your tank shows in a back-and-forth condition regarding nutrients and surface area.

 

what you are continuing here is a fine test for what bacteria require from aquarists to do their job. we ascribe lots of control over bacteria to what we add and withhold from tanks....

 

 

 You are essentially making a ghost feeding verification thread, that ghost feeding isn't required to keep bac going would be the null claim imo. the postverse would surely claim that if you don't maintain specific nutrient input, your filtration ability will downscale to the point it cannot handle the original bioload when reintroduced.

 

Lets see if your system goes up to 2-4 :) in total spite of that postverse claim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

ive been too lazy to start one, but the cousin to this thread needs to be how long does it take totally dry rocks and sand, no form of ammonia boosting or bac added via bottle at all, to become a cycled tank when we just add sw and maintain it.  1-2 ppm digest ability....prediction, 2-4 mos

 

in the 80s that's the only way we set up guppy tanks so I know for a fact it works in fw within 30-60 days, and considering natural seed sources for both setups are globally cast around the world its possible marine tanks may do that just as fast. have not tested the marine version. if the marine version takes longer, I pose its due to seed sources being far less than fw sources but they both are nonetheless cast around globally. I read something on google scholar just the other day called "tropospheric biome distribution" and talks about all the spores molds and fungi lol that travel above the clouds

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, dandelion said:

24-hour results are in. I think it is safe to say the tank retained its 1ppm/24 hour rate after almost 2 years since cycle.

A3B96E9E-67CF-4321-83B9-8322D07C4F6D_zps

 

Now the question begs: Did it gain any processing rate? So I dosed to 2ppm just now. Will report back in the next 2 days.

 

Quite interested to see how long it takes to process the ammonia you just added. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
23 hours ago, brandon429 said:

most anticipated update!

 

Sorry I was too busy yesterday to do any tests. I did save a sample before I left for work. Here are the results:

 

21-hour:

61E166D1-A30F-4E2A-A5B9-7BDB3CFA30CC_zps

48-hour:

C4EB375A-1D8F-47FD-B602-C3CD5CF24011_zps

 

The 21-hour results look to be between 0.50ppm to 1ppm to my naked eye.

 

The 48-hour results still have a slight shade of green in it. I'm sure it will go away if given a few more hours. It is slightly off from my prediction, but largely in line.

 

As for nitrite that stayed 0 throughout, I think it is safe to say that ammonia is the rate-limiting factor in here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Thanks tons

 

your tank can reflect upon many angles for posts including nitrifier toxicity/susceptibility levels, skip cycling, ghost feeding, you have an article pump here.

If you ever get a chance to do a big spike 8-9 parts per million, online material show the nitrifiers won't keep up after five parts per million but I think the system will just bring it back down over a few days.

 

 

 

I think they're tougher.

 

 If it stalls, and cannot process it back down after a few days (I'd have circulation good and strong for the push just my take) then maybe five was the limit. It certainly won't kill the bacteria, after a full water change they should resume at 2-3 ppm no prob.

 

 

There's no telling how metabolites from ammonia testing might accumulate or influence bottom line APi readings or any other colorimetric kit, it's the mere movement in any registrable way that reflects upon the critical bacteria in my opinion. Ideally a full water change between tests really clears the palette and tests the bacteria further as a pure reflection on their upper limits. seeing what your tank does with ammonia is my favorite thread all year so far. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Testing the limit sounds like a fun project. I would want to repopulate the tank with corals at some point, but I don't see why we can't have some fun with it right now.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

and its such a short-order/zero latency impact param to be jacking with. if it were po4 we'd be loading your rocks ad infinitum lol but ammonia wars are dissolved in orders of hours, or by a wc - no lasting issues. your bac at the microscopic level will look like muscled beefcakes after this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
RayWhisperer
On 6/23/2017 at 10:30 AM, brandon429 said:

ive been too lazy to start one, but the cousin to this thread needs to be how long does it take totally dry rocks and sand, no form of ammonia boosting or bac added via bottle at all, to become a cycled tank when we just add sw and maintain it.  1-2 ppm digest ability....prediction, 2-4 mos

 

in the 80s that's the only way we set up guppy tanks so I know for a fact it works in fw within 30-60 days, and considering natural seed sources for both setups are globally cast around the world its possible marine tanks may do that just as fast. have not tested the marine version. if the marine version takes longer, I pose its due to seed sources being far less than fw sources but they both are nonetheless cast around globally. I read something on google scholar just the other day called "tropospheric biome distribution" and talks about all the spores molds and fungi lol that travel above the clouds

Judging by some articles I've read regarding common ammonia processing bacteria strains like nitrossomma and nitrobacter. They are far more prevalent in SW aquariums than they are in FW. Considering these strains are, as you said, globally cast, I would assume a SW tank would cycle even faster than FW. Unfortunately, I can't find any of the articles I was thinking of.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 8/1/2017 at 6:42 PM, brandon429 said:

hey were you able to tweak ammonia further here to draw any inferences off its action/reaction

Sorry I've been lazy for the past month and a half doing only regular maintenance on my tanks and nothing more. I'll get back to it soon and post more results.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
38 minutes ago, dandelion said:

OK I finally got it around to doing the ammonia test again. Just added ~4ppm of ammonia. Will see what happens. 

 

xeycds.jpg

 

Interested to see results. 

How's your tank/s doing?

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Weetabix7 said:

 

Interested to see results. 

How's your tank/s doing?

The two small ones are still empty. I moved everything over to my 29G so that one is pretty crowded right now. Oh and the two clowns are still in my QT because the Fluval still isn't running right (haven't done anything to it the past few months). So I guess you can say the QT has become their home now.

Link to comment

Thanks tons !

 

hey would you tie those readings in with a summary real quick? Just a quick reminder for me of how these comparing tanks are reflecting on cycle details against the greater public perception on what cycles require. I'll go back and reread to see how they are being tested but a quick summary here for the readers linked would keep understanding strong. youve been testing pure fallow settings isn't that correct?

 

api advocates are clapping right now thats solid zero readings there straight up :) well done.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...