Ammonia is our Friend: thoughts needed

[Dan_P]

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.

This should be a meaty topic. I am already writing my rebuttal

I hope you can shed some light on the history of the idea and maybe why it stuck with us.

One possible part of it relates to the whole idea that one could start a reef tank without intentionally cycling nitrifiers. No bacteria additives, not sponges or whatever. Live rock is fine, but the goal of it is to have surfaces resistant to algae, not to add bacteria.

Starting an aquarium with just live rock and coral has been done, right? Maybe not exactly as you are thinking though because for some reason folks take steps to establish an additional population of nitrifying bacteria. Maybe you can unravel the history of that.

For example, starting with plenty of macroalgae, soft corals, and coralline right from day or week one. No fish, or perhaps only an algae eating fish , etc.

Without fish, you are stacking deck in your favor. Fair enough. Maybe there is no such thing as the uglies when fish are absent in aquaria. Where does the ammonia come from then?

I will take the position that macro algae is unnecessary. I think you will find that micro algae along with bacteria are responsible for depleting new systems of nitrogen, though not on day 1, but then, there isn’t going to be much nitrogen on day 1 to deplete. And the level of micro algae to accomplish this is probably below the level that one would describe as a visual nuisance.

The simplistic idea is to have as much or more ammonia uptake capacity than is added from organism feeding. Seems inherently logical, but I'm not certain if there are hidden issues.

Carrying capacity is the hidden issue. You cannot have more uptake capacity than is needed because organism number or biomass exceeding food availability declines, dies, becomes sick, leaves. When the Ulva in my system uses up the nitrate in the aquarium, it becomes infested with cyanobacteria, becomes thin and fragments. The carrying capacity is exceeded. So, I regularly remove Ulva biomass.

The tricky bit for me in your idea is keeping the organic carbon to nitrogen going into the aquarium such that my display organisms are happy and the left overs do not result in much left over nitrogen that needs much capacity to take care of. Get in right going in or figure out how to remove it. I think we are mostly in the latter regime these days.

Anyway looking forwards to some fresh ideas

This thread is a pre-article idea generating thread to flesh out ideas and problems before writing the article.

Looking forwards to this article. Also, while developing the concept keep in mind that I am going to ask “at what scale can this idea or methodology be tested?” I assume the article will be focusing on what success looks like.

Good luck!

Dan

All thoughts and ideas are welcome, especially if you do not agree with the premise or believe the concept will fail.

 

[KrisReef]

Biochemistry and feeding/ replacement of nutrients in a tank with (Sps, LPs) coral and no pissies/ poopie fishes.

Someone posted recently about Jake Adams article on a filter less tank with circulating water only + corals.

It seems timely. Light energy and elements to grow an artificial captive reef.

 

[brandon429]

if they do not input protein on a regular basis that system will crash, there are no self-sustaining captive
reef options. from Eric Borneman 01 in my message box when I asked him if a feedless reef was possible, using light only


surely they were going to feed those corals right> heterotrophs vs autotrophs

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think what you are trying to show is that nitrifying bacteria are not the only viable means of ammonia export/conversion. The problem I see is that by the time the tank is producing enough ammonia to validate your claim, you will have cultured the nitrifying bacteria in the tank via spores in the air, so what have you really accomplished with the experiment? I think to really do this right you would need a way to inhibit bacterial growth in the tank.

Yes, the idea is that adding and expanding nitrifiers is one way to start a tank, but that is not the only possible way. Ignoring nitrifiers and ammonia cycling by adding consumers first is another.

Sure, nitrifiers will show themselves and try to compete. Nothing we can do about that, but we might get folks to stop calling them good bacteria that should be boosted whenever possible.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Biochemistry and feeding/ replacement of nutrients in a tank with (Sps, LPs) coral and no pissies/ poopie fishes.

Someone posted recently about Jake Adams article on a filter less tank with circulating water only + corals.

It seems timely. Light energy and elements to grow an artificial captive reef.

Yes, interesting. Do you have a link?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

if they do not input protein on a regular basis that system will crash, there are no self-sustaining captive
reef options. from Eric Borneman 01 in my message box when I asked him if a feedless reef was possible, using light only


surely they were going to feed those corals right> heterotrophs vs autotrophs

Not sure what this means, but protein is not needed for many organisms, N and P and other trace elements are.

While I believe that would work well, I’m only talking here about starting the tank that way, but ending with an identical reef tank with all your favorite organisms.

 

[danimal1211]

One observation I’ve noticed is that most (not all) nuisance algae require at least a hard edge or porous material to cling to. Smooth surfaces such as acrylics and plastics don’t seem to be great real estate. Coralline however loves these smooth surfaces. I can put a picece of plastic in my tank and see coralline within 2 weeks.

I say this because I’ve pondered doing a very similar set up, except with no rock and only plastics, adding corals first and a source of nitrogen and phosphorus.

 

[BeanAnimal]

if they do not input protein on a regular basis that system will crash, there are no self-sustaining captive
reef options. from Eric Borneman 01 in my message box when I asked him if a feedless reef was possible, using light only


surely they were going to feed those corals right> heterotrophs vs autotrophs

Time frames are important.

I went 5 years without adding ANYTHING but a few pinches of food, in total maybe 6-10 times over that period. A tang, coral beuty and hawkfish and snails and corals lived the entire time. No dosing, no water changes, no filters, no skimmers, nothing. Fish were fat and happy. softies fairly happy and LPS lived as well. Stored nutrients... sure. Nothing can live without food. But "feedless" has to have a context.

From a startup system with no "stored" food. What will live? Certainly some types of bacteria and algae feeding each other and whatever comes from the air. I think you have missed the point of Randy's idea though.

edit: Nevermind... he already responded.

 

[Formulator]

Sure, nitrifiers will show themselves and try to compete. Nothing we can do about that,

Is it true that there is nothing we can do about that? I think the experiment would be even more compelling with an antibiotic, though I’m not sure how livestock would fare in a sterile environment, aside from the impact to nitrogen cycle.

 

[Doctorgori]

bare rock at first?
I wonder how that rock surface will be populated…
IME it’s not just CUC & water params keeping hair algae et at bay, it’s also real estate occupation and displacement. Sorta like your front lawn: thick sod keeps the weeds out, and so does coralline algae ….
I could see it on one hand but I could likewise see you needing fast growing corals and stuff on that rock fast…

I could see montis and cyphrastrea or similar being early corals

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

bare rock at first?
I wonder how that rock surface will be populated…
IME it’s not just CUC & water params keeping hair algae et at bay, it’s also real estate occupation and displacement. Sorta like your front lawn: thick sod keeps the weeds out, and so does coralline algae ….
I could see it on one hand but I could likewise see you needing fast growing corals and stuff on that rock fast…

I could see montis and cyphrastrea or similar being early corals

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.

 

[Glenner’sreef]

Great title for your article! “Ammonia is Our Friend”. It sounds a bit edgy and controversial. And from the pushback I’ve read so far, it could be a while till you finish it. That being said, I totally admire that you’re doing it. I’m looking at this through a writer’s lens. When writing, you’ve got to fully buy into and believe in your premise. Let me take this discussion in a way that instills confidence in your readers.
So we instinctively believe that “Earthquakes and Hurricanes” are bad. Right? Well of course they’re bad. They’ve been villainized like “Ammonia”. But in reality and as we take a closer look we find out something amazing. Earthquakes actually build mountains, enriches soils, regulates the planet’s temperature, concentrates the earth’s gold and rare metals and maintains the sea’s chemical balance.
Hurricane winds and waves move sediment from bays into marsh areas, revitalizing nutrient supplies. Earthquakes and hurricanes sound a lot like reef2reefers. Lol. Now when asked “Are earthquakes and hurricanes good” can you be as confident to say they are bad? The question that “Ammonia is our Friend “ should be so easy to articulate. Mankind is told to “take dominion over the earth” complete sovereignty. Make good choices. Is building a city on a swamp wise? New Orleans, Katrina 2005? Humans don’t always do it right the way they’re supposed to. Your premise has got to be solid and believable. So without stating the obvious, one of your articles chapter headings should be “Earthquakes are Good”. Convince your readers what you believe. Good luck. Following.
Newyorktimes.com
Hurricanescience.org

 

[ReeferZ1227]

Yes, that’s the thought. If the addition order is front end loaded with nutrient consumers as opposed to nutrient producers, one can forget about nitrifiers as a needed thing. They will certainly happen, but aren’t needed.

Wont the addition of consumers inherently bring producers? If corals see benefits from bacteria, i would think adding the consumers without producers would ultimately lead to unhealthy corals.

It seems the villifying of ammonia is already a dead wives tale as its at least as good as, if not better than dosing nitrate. I guess my main question is what are you trying to prove or solve from a hobbyist perspective or is this completely for experimentation?

In an established tank, adding a piece of dry rock results in an ugly phase for that dry rock. How do you expect to have an algae resistant surface in a tank with limited consumption or do you plan on having a pile of coral and coraline in some water? Where will phosphates come from, marine food or dosed? I could be way off base with these questions but half the time I have to study an entire topic to understand a few basic concepts from your posts. Your off the beaten path ones throw me for a major loop.

 

[SDchris]

The simplistic idea is to have as much or more ammonia uptake capacity than is added from organism feeding

My first question is: Is ammonia a problem in the first place?
The inference here is that you need MORE! If it's not a problem in the first place what does having more solve?

 

[SDchris]

One possible part of it relates to the whole idea that one could start a reef tank without intentionally cycling nitrifiers. No bacteria additives, not sponges or whatever.

The second question is: Are we talking about the shorter nitrogen cycle, 1-3 weeks or the longer cycle, 3-6 months? The longer cycle being where you add sps and they typically brown out, stn, and grow slowly during that period.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Interesting. I think about it like this. If we put a fish in a new fish tank with fresh saltwater in let’s say a 5 gallon aquarium. My question to you is now do I need to remove ammonia? What if I put 10 fish in that aquarium now, will I need to remove the ammonia? 20 fish?

Now let’s say I do need to remove ammonia. I can throw in some algae and some corals right? I think that’s where you are going with this. This is the hard part in my mind, how do you know you have enough ammonia consumers to deal with your ammonia producers. Bacteria helps to take that guess work out. Otherwise we will need to calculate our coral and algae mass and all kinds of other stuff to make sure we have enough right?

Basically it’s all based upon what’s in the aquarium. If you put 20 fish in a brand new 5 gallon aquarium then I don’t think ammonia will be very friendly to you right?

 

[Cichlid Dad]

Maybe. That would not be proof of concept that cycling was not needed, but it would work well.

My last build was a 75 gallon striped, cleaned and resealed new 40 breeder sump that was a refugium only with a skimmer. The display was new crushed coral 20 pounds and 20 pounds of TBS live sand. 20 pounds of TBS live rock was added to the refugium with regular sand underneath. Three kinds of macro algae was added to the refugium also. The display has only bleached rock. I added coral day 2 or three . A bunch of Euphyllia, lots of zoa, 2 large birds nest and acro. I added new clean up crew and a cleaner shrimp. Then I added my fish in slowly a little over time. After a week if I remember correctly all of my fish were in . The fish and coral came from a aptaisia infested tank. Nothing else was brought over. All equipment everything was new or stripped down and cleaned. Total fish at the time was a copperband, one spot fox face, two clowns green chromis and a algae blenny. I never experienced a ammonia spike and has nitrates after the first week. I didn't know if this is kinda what you were thinking. Pm me if interested. I have video documentation of what I did.

 

[mikst]

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.

One possible part of it relates to the whole idea that one could start a reef tank without intentionally cycling nitrifiers. No bacteria additives, not sponges or whatever. Live rock is fine, but the goal of it is to have surfaces resistant to algae, not to add bacteria.

For example, starting with plenty of macroalgae, soft corals, and coralline right from day or week one. No fish, or perhaps only an algae eating fish , etc.

The simplistic idea is to have as much or more ammonia uptake capacity than is added from organism feeding. Seems inherently logical, but I'm not certain if there are hidden issues.

This thread is a pre-article idea generating thread to flesh out ideas and problems before writing the article.

All thoughts and ideas are welcome, especially if you do not agree with the premise or believe the concept will fail.

I like it. This is very similar to the freshwater world starting a tank with a ton of plants. It technically slows down the building of the nitrogen cycle and nitrifying bacteria because the plants can uptake ammonia directly, but it also keeps the fish safe because the ammonia doesn't stay in the water column at toxic levels.

 

[Dburr1014]

My first question is: Is ammonia a problem in the first place?
The inference here is that you need MORE! If it's not a problem in the first place what does having more solve?

Good point, and I'm glad you quoted RHF writing that you need as much or more uptake of ammonia than being put in.

That leads me to my system. Constant zero reading of NO3 on my hanna.
It has always been recommended (last 15~20 years) to dose nitrate (or more recently dose ammonia) to keep it off zero(or a few ppm).

The statement contradicts what has been accepted or recommended by many. Having equal or more ammonia uptake will lead to zero NO3. The only way around that is to dose something daily, just enough to balance the few ppm of NO3 needed. Possible in a forever changing environment?

 

[Harpo]