Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[Lasse]

Maybe carbon starvation is driving the generation of excess nitrogen

Exclude carbon starvation - I feed the bottom of the DSB with around 25 ml 8% ethanol every day. This is IMO the reason both for good denitrification in the bed and the huge mineralisation rate in the plenum. around 80 L of aquarium water with NH3/NH4 concentrations around 0.04 mg/L enter the plenum during each hour. still - when I test the plenum water - I get around 0.4 mg/L NH3/NH4.

Carbon limitation will cause a lower mineralising rate of organic matter (read lower heterotrophic bacteria activity)

However - a error can´t be excluded therefore more experiments will be run. I´m not sure where my nitrification happens and I´m able to take away the equipment that I think is the major nitrification mechanisms.

If there is live rock and algae in the tank when started, what would be different?

The cost, stability and safety (and value) of the critters. Sandfilters normally is used as mechanical filters but can easily be changed into an effective nitrification filter (rise the rate of back flushing) if needed. One of the best public reef aquarium I ever have seen (Brest in France) was run with only sand filters - no skimmers or "modern" technique.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Many people have used live rock upfront - and failed 'a cycle'. though with a low bioload it should work - it often does not

But ecologically, that doesn’t really make sense. Ecology scales. Why would something that works on a 300g tank not work on a 3000g tank? I’m strictly talking in this case about the ability to manage NH3/4 through both nitrification and algae and potentially coral uptake.

I get that with any system, there needs to be care given to starting up. But I don’t see why the systems would need to operate any differently long-term.

 

[MnFish1]

But ecologically, that doesn’t really make sense. Ecology scales. Why would something that works on a 300g tank not work on a 3000g tank? I’m strictly talking in this case about the ability to manage NH3/4 through both nitrification and algae and potentially coral uptake.

I get that with any system, there needs to be care given to starting up. But I don’t see why the systems would need to operate any differently long-term.

First, the inhabitants. If a tank has more algae than another it could affect ammonia differently. Second a tank with a larger bioload MAY have more ammonia than one with a small bioload. Third, different elements may be limiting or in excess in one tank vs another. So - your comment makes sense in a perfect world where all of those things can be controlled and identically scaled. In reality especially in tanks not owned by the same person with different inhabitants that would seem to be really difficult.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

First, the inhabitants. If a tank has more algae than another it could affect ammonia differently. Second a tank with a larger bioload MAY have more ammonia than one with a small bioload. Third, different elements may be limiting or in excess in one tank vs another. So - your comment makes sense in a perfect world where all of those things can be controlled and identically scaled. In reality especially in tanks not owned by the same person with different inhabitants that would seem to be really difficult.

I get all of that.

But in any system over 1 month old, there have to be some serious, serious mistakes made along the way to not have a level of nitrification commensurate with the bio-load. I guess if you put x grams biomass per y volume H2O for 1 month, and then added 4x biomass per y volume H2O in a day…yeah, that would be a problem (for a handful of days before the nitrifier population caught up). But I would also consider that a serious mistake that I would think those working on the level of a public aquarium reef would not make.

My question goes back to, if we are setting a large public reef system up thoughtfully and correctly, why would we have to have set the system up differently than we would set up our own tanks? I mean, the life support would also be scaled, so what is different on the processing of NH3/4?

I’m maybe a little different than most here in that I truly believe that a system set up to actually be ecological does not require a whole lot of other equipment to run. Once the tank is cycling (which for me is immediately because I use maricultured rock and rock and sand from existing systems), priority #1 is gas exchange, priority #s 2-whatever are temp, salinity, lighting, processing of matter, alk/Ca/pH, etc. If you have #1 taken care of, and have reasonably checked off #s 2-whatever, the system is off and running whether it’s 10 gallons or 110,000 gallons.

 

[Dan_P]

Out of curiosity, why would we need to put something on a large reef tank in a public aquarium that we wouldn’t need to put in a smaller aquarium? I would never put a sand filter or trickle filter on a 1600l tank I set up for a client.

If there is live rock and algae in the tank when started, what would be different?

One thing for sure is that the surface area does not increase as fast as volume when scaling up an aquarium. This me@ns the available surface area to oxidize ammonia likely becomes inadequate quickly (the necessary surface area can be calculated). For an all coral system I would guess this is not an issue as it would be for a system containing fish.

 

[MnFish1]

I get all of that.

But in any system over 1 month old, there have to be some serious, serious mistakes made along the way to not have a level of nitrification commensurate with the bio-load. I guess if you put x grams biomass per y volume H2O for 1 month, and then added 4x biomass per y volume H2O in a day…yeah, that would be a problem (for a handful of days before the nitrifier population caught up). But I would also consider that a serious mistake that I would think those working on the level of a public aquarium reef would not make.

My question goes back to, if we are setting a large public reef system up thoughtfully and correctly, why would we have to have set the system up differently than we would set up our own tanks? I mean, the life support would also be scaled, so what is different on the processing of NH3/4?

I’m maybe a little different than most here in that I truly believe that a system set up to actually be ecological does not require a whole lot of other equipment to run. Once the tank is cycling (which for me is immediately because I use maricultured rock and rock and sand from existing systems), priority #1 is gas exchange, priority #s 2-whatever are temp, salinity, lighting, processing of matter, alk/Ca/pH, etc. If you have #1 taken care of, and have reasonably checked off #s 2-whatever, the system is off and running whether it’s 10 gallons or 110,000 gallons.

I respect your opinion - I don't believe that you are correct in the broad public sense. Take 2 100 gallon tanks, put in lets say 80 lbs of actual live rick. Make sure aeration etc are identical (including lighting - which I forgot to mention earlier) - meaning - that the same surface area of rock is at the same identical PAR in each tank. Then add 1 yellow tang to one tank a 10 to another. What would happen? Though it's a laudable goal, I don't think 99% of of the systems here (unless receiving intermittent (daily) infusions of natural seawater) are 'ecological' in any sense of the word. Sorry to make this long - but your last sentence got me - 'the systems is 'off and running'' - I'm not sure this definition applies to every aquarist generally since so many people add more or less or different livestock.

Not arguing with you - and - I agree with @Dan_P above vis a vis surface area

 

[MnFish1]

My question goes back to, if we are setting a large public reef system up thoughtfully and correctly, why would we have to have set the system up differently than we would set up our own tanks? I mean, the life support would also be scaled, so what is different on the processing of NH3/4?

I don't think you would. However, the scaling would not be linear IMHO, This gets back to the somewhat old fashioned idea that larger tanks are easier to care for than small tanks

But in any system over 1 month old, there have to be some serious, serious mistakes made along the way to not have a level of nitrification commensurate with the bio-load.

No - since as 'new systems' age - people add fish, etc which create more bioload. You're right IMHO, that after a month the existing bioload is covered.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm thinking of wring an article on how ammonia has been wrongfully vilified in our hobby, with plenty of ammonia science and literature data, experiences of folks dosing it, etc.

I think thats a great idea - however, I'm not sure ammonia has been wrongfully vilified in the hobby. My guess is that 90 % of people don't even check ammonia in established tanks unless there is a problem. And when starting up a tank, it makes sense to check it in any case.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, I agree. We want something to colonize dead rock fast. Maybe even diatoms could serve this purpose, but bacteria will come with macroalgae and corals.

I think I wrote in a thread several months ago - that my next tank - I will start with merely dry rock and enough coral to cover the rock. My strong guess based on my working on this is that the corals will have no issues, and there will be no ugly stage. IMHO the ugly stage we see results from adding multiple nutrients to 'feed corals' If one added just enough 'food' to allow for growth - my guess is that the ammonia produced therefrom would immediately be processed by corals.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think thats a great idea - however, I'm not sure ammonia has been wrongfully vilified in the hobby. My guess is that 90 % of people don't even check ammonia in established tanks unless there is a problem. And when starting up a tank, it makes sense to check it in any case.

Wrongful vilification results in reefers buying products that claim:


Probiotix contains strains of nitrifying bacteria which enhance biodiversity and reinforce the effectiveness of the aquarium's biological filtration.
…

Xport-Bio is great for tanks that have minimal aquascape, or heavily stocked. The biomedia plates can be put just about anywhere within the system to allow more surface area for biological filtration, resulting in faster conversion of ammonia and nitrite into nitrate

…

AF Life Essence is a high quuality nitrifying bacteria supplement for cycling a new aquarium or ammonia reduction in established tanks. Aquaforest has specially selected bacterial strains from the Nitrospirae and Nitrobacter families to accelerate the remove of ammonia and other toxic organic compounds from your aquariums. This solution makes for an excellent bacterial starter for cycling new aquariums. It is also beneficial to use during regular water changes, after filter cleaning, and following antibacterial medication for maintaining a strong biological balance.
…

Aquaforest Life Bio Fil is a natural biological filtration media that has been pre-seeded with carefully selected bacterial strains that will initiate and support the nitrification process in both new and established tanks alike.

…

Aerobic - Optimized for Nitrite, Ammonia Removal
To use the Genesis Rocks to create aerobic bacteria, place the Rocks above water level over your refugium, overflow, or suspended in your system. Run tank water over the rock, and allow the overflow to run into your water column

 

[Garf]

Question - if peeps are going to run a minimum surface area aquarium like mine, what's the most affordable accurate ammonia test? Seems the Hanna ammonia detection is put down to "not important" or "influenced by confounding factors".

 

[Lasse]

I use Hanna Marine Master and found is good enough.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

Question - if peeps are going to run a minimum surface area aquarium like mine, what's the most affordable accurate ammonia test? Seems the Hanna ammonia detection is put down to "not important" or "influenced by confounding factors".

The Hanna Checker seems to be pretty good. It is the typical salicylate method like every other test except Salifert.

I am in the process of converting the Red Sea ammonia test to be used in the Hanna Checker. I will publish the calibration curve and modified method. I don’t remember what @taricha has done with Red Sea. The modified API test that we developed is very sensitive but I worry that quality of the reagents aren’t as good as Hanna or Red Sea. I would have to check each new lot of reagents though the reagents are so cheap, if I were running many tests I would use it.

 

[Garf]

I use Hanna Marine Master and found is good enough.

Sincerely Lasse

The Hanna Checker seems to be pretty good. It is the typical salicylate method like every other test except Salifert.

I am in the process of converting the Red Sea ammonia test to be used in the Hanna Checker. I will publish the calibration curve and modified method. I don’t remember what @taricha has done with Red Sea. The modified API test that we developed is very sensitive but I worry that quality of the reagents aren’t as good as Hanna or Red Sea. I would have to check each new lot of reagents though the reagents are so cheap, if I were running many tests I would use it.

I suppose the next question would be, What's the target value, maximum, minimum values? Considering influencing factors. I'm guessing trial and error.

 

[Dan_P]

I suppose the next question would be, What's the target value, maximum, minimum values? Considering influencing factors. I'm guessing trial and error.

Earlier in the thread, didn’t Randy talk about tenths, maybe as high as 0.5 ppm? Amino acids can cause the test to read high, though I don’t recall at what concentration.

 

[taricha]

This me@ns the available surface area to oxidize ammonia likely becomes inadequate quickly (the necessary surface area can be calculated).

Didnt know we disagreed there
My perspective is that such a small population of ammonia oxidizer cells is needed that surface area can never really be insufficient, even in a bare glass box of 100 gallons.

I am in the process of converting the Red Sea ammonia test to be used in the Hanna Checker. I will publish the calibration curve and modified method. I don’t remember what @taricha has done with Red Sea. The modified API test that we developed is very sensitive but I worry that quality of the reagents aren’t as good as Hanna or Red Sea.

I didn't do much with Red Sea other than replicate what you had done previously.
Red Sea goes short on the high pH hypochlorite reagent so they don't have to use that much chelator. Anyway the risk of DIY is shorting the hypochlorite and getting different results if your kit is a little low.

API took your advice that they were adding too much reagents and newer bottle droppers dispense less of the yellow-forming nitroprusside reagent A.
My old formula strarted giving me bigger lot-to-lot differences, so I upped the number of drops of A, and now all the lots read the same again.

(We can take that discussion to email)

 

[taricha]

Earlier in the thread, didn’t Randy talk about tenths, maybe as high as 0.5 ppm? Amino acids can cause the test to read high, though I don’t recall at what concentration.

Very roughly, the non-zero baseline that every salicylate test shares gives somewhere in the 0.05-0.10ppm on hanna and the normal proteins/aminos etc in reef tanks gives another (very roughly) up to 0.10ppm.
So most every hobbyist with a mature zero ammonia reef tank gets like 0.05-0.20ppm ammonia from hanna.

 

[GARRIGA]

I’ve never placed much importance on precision accuracy to amount of ammonia present. Just presence or absence. API ammonia strip accurate enough plus I checked it once creating a reference solution and it was spot on. Quick. Don’t need Hanna for everything or titration in general. Although only test strips I test for accuracy yet still use test strips for cycling as I only care about presence or absence with nitrites and nitrates. Post cycle where I care about accuracy and only with nitrates.

Food for though for those wanting to test ammonia and corals. Unless one feels accuracy here matters considering I expect it to be consumed quickly and more concerned with knowing there’s excess and need to adjust my dosing. Not like any likely looking to run a range like with nitrates.

 

[Lasse]

My perspective is that such a small population of ammonia oxidizer cells is needed that surface area can never really be insufficient, even in a bare glass box of 100 gallons.

During optimal circumstances in freshwater the total nitrification rate (NH3/NH4 ->NO2-> NO3) of one of the best carriers I know (Kaldnes K-5) is around 0.4-0.6 g N per m2 and day (0.55 - 0.77 NH3/NH4) K5 media has effective area of around 0.8 m2/L.

Wastewater plants use to calculate with the lower figure. In a mature saltwater tank with competition of heterotrophic bacteria, algae, sometimes lesser O2 and the known slower nitrification rate (compared with fresh water) the area needed would be much more. My mass balance calculation of my mature tank show a gain of around 1.13 * 300/1000 g NO3-N/day => 0.33 g N/day - its half of the calculated daily input of inorganic N into my system. My aquarium content zones (fast speed rough foam filter) optimised for nitrification. I´m not agree with you on that statement.

Very roughly, the non-zero baseline that every salicylate test shares gives somewhere in the 0.05-0.10ppm on hanna and the normal proteins/aminos etc in reef tanks gives another (very roughly) up to 0.10ppm.
So most every hobbyist with a mature zero ammonia reef tank gets like 0.05-0.20ppm ammonia from hanna.

That´s the reason why I always - with every batch reagents - do a zero calibration with saltwater supposed to have 0 mg/L NH3/NH4. Its normally end up with a correction constant around 0.06 mg/L. In my graphs - shown in this thread and elsewhere - this correction constant is used.

My measurements also show zones with a high internal production of NH3/NH4-N in my mature aquarium. It indicate that of my total daily load of NH3/NH4-N - the internal production was 3 time higher than the daily waste N from my feed. It is coarse calculation but IMO - it show the big picture.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Dan_P]

Didnt know we disagreed there
My perspective is that such a small population of ammonia oxidizer cells is needed that surface area can never really be insufficient, even in a bare glass box of 100 gallons.

I’d frame it a tiny bit differently of course

We agree when the aquarium contains only coral and our comfort level about what is sufficient surface area diverges once heterotrophs are added, especially fish. I suspect our comfort levels realigns for aquaculture system.