Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[Garf]

I think that's a troll attempt, nonspecific accusation not relevant to discussion here but carry over from prior thread issues was the tell.


where's the link, what's the specific you are referring to? lemme see the bad call + the tank outcome in question. bad ammonia calls have consequences on file, easily linked.

I don't think you've grasped the idea of this thread. Yes, I understand it makes a mockery of your threads, but facts is facts. Ammonia can indeed fluctuate. Does it matter to us? Probably not within reason. You may be unemployed.

 

[Dburr1014]

I don't think you've grasped the idea of this thread. Yes, I understand it makes a mockery of your threads, but facts is facts. Ammonia can indeed fluctuate. Does it matter to us? Probably not within reason. You may be unemployed.

I think that's a troll attempt, nonspecific accusation not relevant to discussion here but carry over from prior thread issues was the tell.


where's the link, what's the specific you are referring to? lemme see the bad call + the tank outcome in question. bad ammonia calls have consequences on file, easily linked.

Guys, not here.
Don't ruin this work thread.
Everyone has opinions about everything. This is a meeting of the minds and we don't need this banter here.
Thank you for your support.

 

[jonelder68]

I’ll be starting up my tank hopefully in a month or two and would gladly be a test subject. @Randy Holmes-Farley I think my set up would be perfect for this! If you want Randy DM and let’s do science.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I was surprised to find that only one of seven samples had any ability to convert ammonia to nitrite and nitrate.

Given that NH3/4 is the limiting factor that determines the carrying capacity for those specific nitirifiers, this does not surprise me.

It appears that we have been underestimating NH3/4 uptake in our systems, and that there is actually a lot of competition for it. Then, the addition of specific zones within our systems to function solely as zones of nitrification further distributes the bacterial population. I think we have always looked at every solid surface with oxygenated water moving over it as being covered with nitrifiers. I doubt the typical aquarium is capable of sustaining such a population, especially with competition.

BTW, I think this is an outstanding thread.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It would be interesting to see the ratio of nitirifiers on the porous zones to those on smooth higher flow zones as relates to gross surface area. I assume them to be everywhere, but where do they thrive? Answering that may answer how to give the coral an advantage (if in fact it needs one).

 

[SDchris]

There are several studies which all come to the same conclusion: If nitrate is the (only) nitrogen source, it will cause damage in corals. One of the most comprehensive ones is the dissertation of Shantz.

My main takeaway is:

Natural enrichment via fish excretion always enhanced coral growth

Our analyses show that nitrate tends to slow coral growth while ammonium has little effect

In contrast to the negative effects of nitrogen, P enrichment increased calcification rates of corals (Fig 2.1) but had no effect on extension rates or skeletal density

As someone who has always run very bare (no sand, little rock, skimmer, nothing else), I would also agree with that.
1. is fish poop magical? probably not, but it is also likely covered in the intestinal bacteria of that fish. Evolutionary that might be important.

2. If ammonia has little effect, then why are some people seeing the opposite after dosing? It might be that baseline growth rates where low to start with! If growth was slow, then why? That goes to the heart of this thread. One reason put forward is competition for N. I do find it hard to believe N was limiting in some of those tanks (taking competition into account)

 

[Lasse]

I think we have always looked at every solid surface with oxygenated water moving over it as being covered with nitrifiers. I doubt the typical aquarium is capable of sustaining such a population, especially with competition.

It would be interesting to see the ratio of nitirifiers on the porous zones to those on smooth higher flow zones as relates to gross surface area. I assume them to be everywhere, but where do they thrive? Answering that may answer how to give the coral an advantage (if in fact it needs one).

As a person that have study nitrification for + 50 years (both theoretical and practical) had this been my holy gral as long as I have been in the salt water hobby. The nitrification capacity of a normal saltwater aquarium without a special nitrification equipment is low and mostly most important in the beginning in order to establish a population.

The main standpoint for me is the competition in different levels. Please see this thread for a full argument

Not mainly through the uptake rate of NH3/NH4 but competition between the autotroph nitrifying organism and heterotroph bacteria.

1) competition of space.

Autotroph nitrifying organisms growth - especially NOB (Nitrite Oxidation Bacteria) is slow compared with the fast growing heterotrophic bacteria. If all important growth factors is fulfilled for both groups the heterotrophs have a grow rate of between 15 - 50 times higher than the autotrophic nitrifying organisms.

2) competition of O2

Especially the NOB (NO2 -> NO3) is sensitive for oxygen pressure. In freshwater - both literature and my own experiences - around 5 mg/L free O2 is near the minimum demand. In real life it means that only a thin (µmeters) part of a biofilm is active in a complete nitrification. Note - that the O2 saturation in saltwater is around 1 - 1.5 mg/L lower than in freshwater (calculator here) at the same altitude and temperature. At 27 C, 35 PSU and sea level - 100% saturation is around 6.4 mg/L. Also note that a rather normal saturation in saltwater during night is around 80 % (at least in my aquarium). Of cause the NOB in saltwater could have adapted a little - but IMO not so very much

IMO - this fact kill the discussion about porous and no porous surface totally. After a while (mostly only days) pores in the porous substrate is overgrown with heterotrophic biofilm - creating an effective area for the nitrifying organisms not larger than the effective area of a non porous substrate.

The most effective nitrification system is using non porous plastic media which is polished by a fully oxygenated water stream leaving behind a thin biofilm consisting mostly of nitrifying organisms. Trickling filter and the Kaldnes method

My main takeaway is:

is fish poop magical?

Fish excretion in this case (waste N) is mainly through the gills (NH4) not through the pop. The pop excretion is only around 20 % of the total waste N excretion from fish. Around 80 % is through the gills.

It might be that baseline growth rates where low to start with!

IMO - always than an addition of whatever leads to increased growth, then you have found the growth inhibiting factor in that particular system and at that particular moment!

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Garf]

but where do they thrive?

My guess is inside pipework. Plastic surfaces appears to be their favourite, along with rapid constant flow, in the dark.

 

[SDchris]

Fish excretion in this case (waste N) is mainly through the gills (NH4) not through the pop. The pop excretion is only around 20 % of the total waste N excretion from fish. Around 80 % is through the gills.

Ammonium only dosing experiments showed no difference in growth rate. Which only really leaves the poop:

Fishes may also be a source of particulate organic matter which corals could ingest, further enhancing their growth rates (Meyer and Schultz 1985b).

But admittedly, how the data supporting "fish waste coral growth rates" was derived leaves it open to some speculation and interpretation.

 

[Lasse]

Ammonium only dosing experiments showed no difference in growth rate. Which only really leaves the poop:

Which exclude NH3/NH4 as a reason for better growth. As I tried to show but was not clear enough in my argumentation. Pop is rich in P as an example. Easily transformed into dissolved PO4 by bacteria

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Doctorgori]

The most effective nitrification system is using non porous plastic media which is polished by a fully oxygenated water stream leaving behind a thin biofilm consisting mostly of nitrifying organisms. Trickling filter and the Kaldnes method

There was slight paradigm shortly after 2000ish where those ole skool bioball filters were deemed “Nitrate factories” and pulled off of most folks reef tanks in favor of better equipment, skimmers et ….
… has nitrate definitively been proven to inhibit coral growth above certain levels?
… so are we now saying ammonia/ammonium doesn’t inhibit growth and/or is the preferred nitrogen molecule for uptake ? (vs Nitrate)
….just trying to follow along …PTI

 

[AC1211]

That’s a good point that in some tanks, rock porosity may be a detriment.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

… has nitrate definitively been proven to inhibit coral growth above certain levels?
… so are we now saying ammonia/ammonium doesn’t inhibit growth and/or is the preferred nitrogen molecule for uptake ? (vs Nitrate)
….just trying to follow along …PTI

Ammonium/ammonia is clearly the preference of some corals over nitrate. Ammonia will certainly will hit a toxic level for any organism at some point (a reef tank in 20% ammonia in water obviously will not thrive), but it is not known to me what level that is for corals. IMO, there is no evidence that any cycled reef tank reaches a problematic level of ammonia for corals.

The nitrate story is unclear, but a great many corals thrive in the presence of 100 ppm nitrate. Whether that is any concern may depend on whether corals need to use nitrate, or have plenty of ammonium and other preferred sources of N.

 

[GARRIGA]

Fish respiration accounts for 80% of ammonium/ammonia shows that most reefers spend way too much effort removing detritus vs processing It.

Capture it and let nature decompose it into mulm then remove that my approach. Was hoping I could process that as well but reality has shown otherwise.

Plenty of ammonium exits in tanks filled with fish. Feed the fish which feeds the corals. Feed nature my thinking.

 

[Lasse]

so are we now saying ammonia/ammonium doesn’t inhibit growth and/or is the preferred nitrogen molecule for uptake ? (vs Nitrate)

Ammonium/ammonia is clearly the preference of some corals over nitrate.

I'm not too comfortable with the word prefer - it gives the impression that corals can freely choose their nitrogen source

Instead I see it something like this:

Of inorganic N molecules NH3/NH4 is probably the only N species that can be transported through internal cell walls for further production of specific amino acids (I stress inorganic because , as I understand it, amino acids can be transported through external and internal cell walls too and they are organic molecules.) This means - in the coral case - that probably already the coral animal has to convert NO3 into NH3/NH4 before further transport into the algae symbiont. I say probably because in terrestrial plants it have been shown that there is both NO3 transporter channels in the roots and NO3 transporter proteins in the internal fluids and the finally conversion into NH3/NH4 (or amino acids) happens in the shots.However if there is an internal transportation of NO3 in the coral animal external cell walls or in the body fluid - it is the only animal I know that have this. The coral animal will also produce internal amino acids and NH3/NH4 when it is feeding (either of in excess produced symbionts or external), therefore it is more plausible that it is amino acids and NH3/NH4 that will be transported into the zooxanthellae and most enzymatic conversation of NO3 happens in the interface between water and coral animal. But I do not know.

IMO this enzymatic conversation of NO3 need energy that otherwise could have been used for growth and calcification (in the case of stony corals). This means that - IMO - most corals will use external (in the water column) NH3/NH4 if it present and switch to NO3 if that NH3/NH-N source is not enough to fulfill their demands. If it is as much NH3/NH4-N in the water column that the corals need for growth - it save more energy for both calcification and cell growth compared if the N have been NO3-N

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Reefering1]

I'm not too comfortable with the word prefer - it gives the impression that corals can freely choose their nitrogen source

Instead I see it something like this:

Of inorganic N molecules NH3/NH4 is probably the only N species that can be transported through internal cell walls for further production of specific amino acids (I stress inorganic because , as I understand it, amino acids can be transported through external and internal cell walls too and they are organic molecules.) This means - in the coral case - that probably already the coral animal has to convert NO3 into NH3/NH4 before further transport into the algae symbiont. I say probably because in terrestrial plants it have been shown that there is both NO3 transporter channels in the roots and NO3 transporter proteins in the internal fluids and the finally conversion into NH3/NH4 (or amino acids) happens in the shots.However if there is an internal transportation of NO3 in the coral animal external cell walls or in the body fluid - it is the only animal I know that have this. The coral animal will also produce internal amino acids and NH3/NH4 when it is feeding (either of in excess produced symbionts or external), therefore it is more plausible that it is amino acids and NH3/NH4 that will be transported into the zooxanthellae and most enzymatic conversation of NO3 happens in the interface between water and coral animal. But I do not know.

IMO this enzymatic conversation of NO3 need energy that otherwise could have been used for growth and calcification (in the case of stony corals). This means that - IMO - most corals will use external (in the water column) NH3/NH4 if it present and switch to NO3 if that NH3/NH-N source is not enough to fulfill their demands. If it is as much NH3/NH4-N in the water column that the corals need for growth - it save more energy for both calcification and cell growth compared if the N have been NO3-N

Sincerely Lasse

Sooooo, for the regular(dumb) people... would favor be a better word than prefer? Sounds as if the coral is simply more optimized for NH3/NH4 but they are adaptable to NO3? Comparable to you or me drinking water from a glass vs using a spoon to consume the water?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I'm not too comfortable with the word prefer - it gives the impression that corals can freely choose their nitrogen source

Instead I see it something like this:

Of inorganic N molecules NH3/NH4 is probably the only N species that can be transported through internal cell walls for further production of specific amino acids (I stress inorganic because , as I understand it, amino acids can be transported through external and internal cell walls too and they are organic molecules.) This means - in the coral case - that probably already the coral animal has to convert NO3 into NH3/NH4 before further transport into the algae symbiont. I say probably because in terrestrial plants it have been shown that there is both NO3 transporter channels in the roots and NO3 transporter proteins in the internal fluids and the finally conversion into NH3/NH4 (or amino acids) happens in the shots.However if there is an internal transportation of NO3 in the coral animal external cell walls or in the body fluid - it is the only animal I know that have this. The coral animal will also produce internal amino acids and NH3/NH4 when it is feeding (either of in excess produced symbionts or external), therefore it is more plausible that it is amino acids and NH3/NH4 that will be transported into the zooxanthellae and most enzymatic conversation of NO3 happens in the interface between water and coral animal. But I do not know.

IMO this enzymatic conversation of NO3 need energy that otherwise could have been used for growth and calcification (in the case of stony corals). This means that - IMO - most corals will use external (in the water column) NH3/NH4 if it present and switch to NO3 if that NH3/NH-N source is not enough to fulfill their demands. If it is as much NH3/NH4-N in the water column that the corals need for growth - it save more energy for both calcification and cell growth compared if the N have been NO3-N

Sincerely Lasse

I’m comfortable with prefer since when presented with equal concentrations of each, they take up ammonium.

Most of your post seems focussed on mechanistic reasons why they prefer it.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Sooooo, for the regular(dumb) people... would favor be a better word than prefer? Sounds as if the coral is simply more optimized for NH3/NH4 but they are adaptable to NO3? Comparable to you or me drinking water from a glass vs using a spoon to consume the water?

Or put differently, if you are presented with a large pile of dollar bills and a large pile of pennies, you will likely have a preference for the bills over the pennies, despite being able to use either. It takes you less energy to gain money picking up bills and it takes a coral less energy to gain N sucking up ammonia.

 

[Strad12]

Hi Randy, how does coral's uptake of ammonia compare to consumption of bacteria, phytoplankton, or zooplankton as a source of nutrition? Can corals derive enough energy and nutrition from capturing live food in a reef tank, or is ammonia dosing easier and equally effective? Should the two be combined (phyto dosing and ammonia dosing) for greater effect?

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

As a person that have study nitrification for + 50 years (both theoretical and practical) had this been my holy gral as long as I have been in the salt water hobby. The nitrification capacity of a normal saltwater aquarium without a special nitrification equipment is low and mostly most important in the beginning in order to establish a population.

The main standpoint for me is the competition in different levels. Please see this thread for a full argument

Not mainly through the uptake rate of NH3/NH4 but competition between the autotroph nitrifying organism and heterotroph bacteria.

1) competition of space.

Autotroph nitrifying organisms growth - especially NOB (Nitrite Oxidation Bacteria) is slow compared with the fast growing heterotrophic bacteria. If all important growth factors is fulfilled for both groups the heterotrophs have a grow rate of between 15 - 50 times higher than the autotrophic nitrifying organisms.

2) competition of O2

Especially the NOB (NO2 -> NO3) is sensitive for oxygen pressure. In freshwater - both literature and my own experiences - around 5 mg/L free O2 is near the minimum demand. In real life it means that only a thin (µmeters) part of a biofilm is active in a complete nitrification. Note - that the O2 saturation in saltwater is around 1 - 1.5 mg/L lower than in freshwater (calculator here) at the same altitude and temperature. At 27 C, 35 PSU and sea level - 100% saturation is around 6.4 mg/L. Also note that a rather normal saturation in saltwater during night is around 80 % (at least in my aquarium). Of cause the NOB in saltwater could have adapted a little - but IMO not so very much

IMO - this fact kill the discussion about porous and no porous surface totally. After a while (mostly only days) pores in the porous substrate is overgrown with heterotrophic biofilm - creating an effective area for the nitrifying organisms not larger than the effective area of a non porous substrate.

The most effective nitrification system is using non porous plastic media which is polished by a fully oxygenated water stream leaving behind a thin biofilm consisting mostly of nitrifying organisms. Trickling filter and the Kaldnes method



Fish excretion in this case (waste N) is mainly through the gills (NH4) not through the pop. The pop excretion is only around 20 % of the total waste N excretion from fish. Around 80 % is through the gills.

IMO - always than an addition of whatever leads to increased growth, then you have found the growth inhibiting factor in that particular system and at that particular moment!

Sincerely Lasse

Thank you, @Lasse . This is great stuff. When you say ‘special nitrification equipment’, I’m assuming you’re talking about on the level of laboratory or municipal water treatment, not just the standard aquarium products to increase surface area. Is that correct?

As you might recall from other conversations, I lean very heavily on limiting factors/carrying capacity for trying to understand what is happening in aquatic ecosystems, particularly closed systems such as aquariums that operate differently than open systems.

I’ve never understood this quest to add as much surface area as possible for nitrifies. I stopped using all bio-media in the mid-90s. It never made sense, and then it was confirmed to be unimportant in an established system (reef or otherwise) when I virtually never saw testable levels NH3/4 present in any water samples, whether the systems had bio media or not.

I feel I have learned a lot from you about the microbes in our systems. Thank you.