how to stop vodka dosing, leasons learned

[rgulrich]

@Reefin' Dude - to help explain the differences between substances such as Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, and Phosphorous //in solution//:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Analytic...ns_in_Solution
Please read it before you state something like the above comments you made about falsehoods - as they were just plain rude, and, well, perhaps taken as ill-intentioned.

If the bacteria have not digested the fecal matter, it is not //in solution//. As mentioned a number of times already, the vast majority of the Ammonia in solution is from respiration of the fish and invertebrates - not fecal material. No matter how much detritus you vacuum out, unless you perform a 100% water change(remember //in solution//), you're not going to have a significant effect.

Now, if the bacteria have started down the nitrogen-cycle path and begun work on the fecal material, these elements are released (respired) into solution as waste. There are plenty of scholarly articles on the contents of detritus and fecal material, especially as pertains to lagoons. Please use Google Scholar, call up a number of peer reviewed papers, and read them. I have. You'll find some great information on the decay cycle, the mineralization of carbon compounds, and lots of other interesting things. As I mentioned above, a real good thing to do is hit the citations the authors provide at the end of the papers and see if you can locate the peripheral and supporting research.


@CStrickland - I thought that paper about the blennies was pretty neat too. You've just struck upon one of the reasons I truly enjoy this hobby. Don't be afraid to ask questions and to look for answers. But one thing to remember is to "trust but verify" - not everything you read on a blog site, forum, or such is necessarily true. I'm really a French model (thank you Paul B), for instance. For example, if you want to see something that very few people know of, read about the Citron Goby, and pay special attention to its diet:
http://fishbase.sinica.edu.tw/summar...tu%26%2339%3Bi

And then how about the results of some research (hint - Gobiodon citrinus about 4/5ths of the way down):
http://www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_...5/no25004.html

Thanks for asking questions, and for your patience with some of us old dudes that know we still don't have all the answers, but try to find out, too.

[PhaneSoul]

Originally Posted by Dan_P

Why do you say live rock self cleans? And if the substate is fine, how do propose that solids get into it?

Cheap kindve outlined this with the tugor activities, this is what the difference is between eve bated rocks and the sand. The top of the rock is where you need the flow the most, because gravity pulls down. Whereas any detritus being pushed out of the bottom just simply gets pulled down by gravity. It's the natural activities of bacteria pushing detritus out.

You can see this in action by 'cooking' rocks. It's amazing how much comes out. In my 10g I had a cave rock (one solid rock that was hollow) a bridge type rock and 3-4 small golf ball sized rocks for several months. No fish. I kept either a pep shrimp or a serpent star and hand fed them twice a week, just a piece of table shrimp. Over the course of several months I siphoned the stuff out of the bottom and replaced what water I took out with new water. Once a month I took the whole tank down and washed out the rocks really good, scrubbed the tank and did 100% wc. (Pretty hard on shrimp in a 10g that's prolly why he died). At first detritus just dusted the bottom, but every week it got more and more. After about 6 months every week I was pulling out the equivelent of a full ash tray. Then all of a sudden one week it was back to a light dusting and coralline algae went rampant. Since we can all agree coralline don't like phos and I had a very very low bioload what do you think was goin on? When coralline was going rampant all parameters stayed low, less then 10 ppm nitrate (API tests) no algae, even the glass wasn't dusty after a week. The bacteria were purging the liverock of available nutrients. And a lot of phos. Up taking nutrients, growing in population, some died they were pushed out of the rock bound with their nutrients and floated to the bottom of the tank where I take them and their bound nutrients out.

The substrate cannot do this. Well the bacteria can do what they do but then the detritus gets stuck at the bottom cuz it can't go up, gravity says down and if your putting enough flow thru the sandbed to get them out then all your sand is in the water column as well (this is where PaulB's reverse under gravel filter comes in). So it stays there to be broken down by other micro organisms. Now instead of having detritus you now have detritus that's being converted to food and the biomass (micro organisms) in the sandbed is growing. More growth means more things can and do die releasing more nutrients. If your not somehow maintaining the nutrients in the sandbed then the biomass is just going to get larger.

How's food get into the sandbed? Just like everything else. Gravity. Ever hear of people telling others to mix their salt mix because gravity pulls the smaller particles to the bottom? Same concept. Then you have bacteria and micro organisms pulling what's settled on the top into the substrate as well.

[CStrickland]

Oops! i mixed up reefgeezer with rgulrich in my other post. I meant to thank Ray for the papers, it wont let me edit so thanks Ray! I was thinking about getting a citron goby, I'll read those next.

Also, Phane didnt make a typo the C in my name stands for Cheap (and also Charles, but only if you like reading W. Somerset Maugham)

[rgulrich]

@CStrickland - I've been called a geezer as well, so no offense taken. I'll assume it was a complement!

I've brought a few more tomes for some light reading. (Yes, this is where you can see the graying old dude with the Harley jacket unpack the books from the saddlebags) I was going to bring over a few on the weight of fish fecal matter pre- and post- biodegradation, but thought those a bit droll and not really to the point. Here's a few I thought might be of interest, however, as Ammonia seems to always be the culprit in any of these murder mysteries:

Ammonia and the Reef Aquarium (A lucid explanation by Randy Holmes-Farley I could never hope to match)
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/rhf/#6

The rest of these go a bit deeper, step by step, until you get to the last one. I hope you brought your molecular biology hat with you - you're going to need it. It does provide a great in depth explanation of the why's and wherefore's of Ammonia and fish, where it comes from, and where it goes (with some great peripheral information as well).

Nitrogen Excretion and Osmotic Regulation
http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/aq...nt/excrete.htm

“The elimination of most nitrogen waste products in land animals is performed through the kidneys. In contrast, fish rely heavily on their gills for this function, excreting primarily ammonia.”
A Fish Farmer's Guide to Understanding Water Quality
https://www.extension.purdue.edu/ext...as/as-503.html

“The gills are the primary site of ammonia excretion in fish (Wilkie, 1997, 2002; Weihrauch et al., 2009), because they have large surface area, perfusion by 100% of cardiac output, large ventilation rates, small diffusion distances, and contact with a voluminous mucosal medium (Evans et al., 2005). “
Ammonia Production, Excretion, Toxicity, and Defense in Fish: A Review
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3059970/

Enjoy!

[Paul B]

This month my reef is 44 years old. I don't see any detritus and if I did I don't care because I feel it is an end product of decomposition and benign. I don't siphon anything and every few years stir the gravel and suck it out but it is a couple of years overdue. To me it is of no concern. But I have a reverse UG filter and you guys don't (although I don't know why)

[Reefin' Dude]

sorry, i guess i need to be more clear.

why are we so worried about nitrate? we need to be worrying about both nitrate and phosphates. actually we need to be worried about most elements needed for biological function, but the phosphate rabbit hole is hard enough. we need more emphasis towards phosphates. phosphates ARE NOT off gassed, they have to be physically removed from the system. they all go hand in hand. bacteria need other elemental resources besides N. like any living organism they also need P. to understand what is going on, we must understand P. worrying about N, does little for controlling total nutrients of a system since N can be fixated from the atmosphere and also released to the atmosphere. P can not. it must be physically entered and removed from the system. the more P that is in the system, the more biomass that can be supported. the more N that can utilized through different sources.

Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data for freshwater invertebrates

the very first line of the first link posted by rgulch in post #101.

"Scientists generally react chemicals in liquid or solution form because reacting chemicals as solids is usually much slower."

i know the difference between in solution and solid. i am also aware that it takes longer for any reaction to occur with a solid than in solution. that is why i keep emphasizing detritus, and poo. they are solids. they take longer for bacteria to break down. they are also what is building up on the bottom of the tank and can see. i now that soluble N and P are being removed by the skimmer because it stinks and isn't clear.

Chapter 1, The Decomposition Process

of special note in the section about aerobic decomposition.

"When some of the organisms die, their stored nitrogen and carbon becomes available to other organisms. As other organisms use the nitrogen from the dead cells to form new cell material, once more excess carbon is converted to C02. Thus, the amount of carbon is reduced and the limited amount of nitrogen is recycled. Finally, when the ratio of available carbon to available nitrogen is in sufficient balance, nitrogen is released as ammonia. Under favorable conditions, some ammonia may oxidize to nitrate. Phosphorus, potash, and various micro-nutrients are also essential for biological growth. These are normally present in more than adequate amounts in compostable materials and present no problem."

note the release of nitrogenous compounds during decomposition.

Decomposers

of importance here is the amount of CO2 produced during decomposition. how many people here have pH problems? grow algae in order to control pH? where is the algae getting its resources. sound like a self fulfilling prophesy?

The Best Animal Manure Fertilizers

"Fish manure, along with other fish byproducts such as fish meal and fish emulsion, is another excellent fertilizer derived from animal waste. Unlike livestock animal manure, which takes months to break down and make nutrients available for growing plants, fish manure is a fast-acting fertilizer that provides a quick nutrient boost to the soil. Fish manure is nitrogen rich, but also provides lower levels of the macronutrients phosphorus and potassium. Fish fertilizer products can be applied and mixed into vegetable garden soil or used as a foliar spray directly onto ornamentals such as roses."

sorry, could not find a free version of the next article, but the fist couple of pages are helpful for this conversation.

The nutrient content and the release of nutrients from fish food and faeces

G~

[CStrickland]

Lol, Paul's RUGF went from ahead of the curve, to behind it, to back ahead of it again. The rest of us keep curving and he just smokes virtual cigars and chuckles like that little smiley face he uses. Crushed coral with back pressure, and a 10' tall skimmer is a pretty good way to avoid needing to vac, right? Too bad he won't let me come over and disconnect that algae trough... I'd sure like to see what happens. PM me next time you need a tank sitter Mr B

Yay! More reading! Geoff always seems to get prolific when finals are coming, but I bet it's me getting more procrastinaty

[PhaneSoul]

Originally Posted by Paul B

This month my reef is 44 years old. I don't see any detritus and if I did I don't care because I feel it is an end product of decomposition and benign. I don't siphon anything and every few years stir the gravel and suck it out but it is a couple of years overdue. To me it is of no concern. But I have a reverse UG filter and you guys don't (although I don't know why)

Paul, besides the recent stint with your pipefish, wernt you using the diatom filter to create a 'storm' in your tank to filter stuff out a few times a year?

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by Paul B

This month my reef is 44 years old. I don't see any detritus and if I did I don't care because I feel it is an end product of decomposition and benign. I don't siphon anything and every few years stir the gravel and suck it out but it is a couple of years overdue. To me it is of no concern. But I have a reverse UG filter and you guys don't (although I don't know why)

Happy birthday Paul's reef tank!

Is there such a thing as old tank syndrome? Is it possibly just an outcome of neglect? Or is there a way to maintain a system that makes it go off the rails and crash?

[Paul B]

Paul, besides the recent stint with your pipefish, wernt you using the diatom filter to create a 'storm' in your tank to filter stuff out a few times a year?

My typhoon is way overdue, like years. Pipefish hate when I do that and I can't catch them so I am not sure what I am going to do. I know you guys like to talk about detritus, phosphates, de gassing and all that, but I just need to stir my gravel every year and forget all about that stuff. If I didn't have any pipefish, I would have done it already.
I think Old Tank Syndrome kicks in after 45 years.

[rgulrich]

@Reefin' Dude - I'm not sure what the grail is for your crusade but again, I plead with you, vacuum your reef aquarium if you wish. Please please please understand that some of us have successful aquariums without a siphoning fixation. It works for you - please don't stop. Continue to siphon detritus. I'm encouraging you to go ahead and break it out after reading this and hit the nooks and crannies of your sump, move your rock around, and hook up little colostomy bags if necessary to all of your reef's inhabitants.

What I was speaking to was ***Ammonia in solution***, which all of the research papers I provided state that the vast majority comes from respiration, >>>>>>not decomposition<<<<<<. If you think that is wrong, by all means please call Randy, Marietta, Purdue, and the NIH on it - I'm sure they'd all be interested in your sources. I for one would be very interested in their responses, so please publish them when they are made available.

For your point, yes, when fecal material decomposes the consuming bacteria also respire Ammonia, and when they die and decompose their consumers respire Ammonia in turn - 1.) just not to the amount that is respired at the top of the food chain (this is related to entropy, I believe...I'd have to find that source again) and 2.) until at some point (sometimes sooner rather than later, as is pointed out in a few of the papers I provided after the first pass some of the material assumes a half life of 150-300 years) the waste material is mineralized and rendered inert (non-biodgradable mulm). Yes, many fish farms do recycle their solid wastes material as compost and fertilizer, and in some locales are required to by law - but they recycle their water through a filtration system which contains particulate (for further recycling), biological, algal, and sometimes even chemical depending on bio-load. Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS for short) are fascinating, and this is a growing industry where a lot of the more current research is occurring.

Again, >>I<< am speaking to waste in the form of >>>respired Ammonia<<<, which constitutes the vast majority of waste our aquarium inhabitants produce. I focus the majority of my efforts on addressing the nitrogen cycle with regards to that waste. These efforts simultaneously oxygenate the water and remove some peripheral contaminants as well, while you appear to focus your efforts on siphoning fecal material. I use filter socks to remove detritus (!!!) from solution (!!!), especially after I stir the rubble on the bottom of the aquarium, and I will continue to do so. I use a skimmer to remove some surface-reactive soluble proteinaceous material and provide a massive surface area for gas exchange, occasionally some carbon to provide a little more water clarity, and even use a Polyfilter every now and then to remove stray heavy metals and some organics other methods may have missed. I'm not afraid of even providing some additional surface area for more bacteria, as I carry a pretty heavy fish load as opposed to a real reef (anything over 1" per 1000 gallons is easily overstocked in that comparison). I don't find any of this cumbersome, if I did, I wouldn't be doing this as a hobby.

[CHSUB]

Originally Posted by Dan_P

Interesting results.

Do you have fish in the system?

yes, many and some large!!!! i find it interesting some worry so much about po4, when i need to add it. however, since stopping vinegar i don't add po4 anymore, just feed the fish a ton. Luckily, i don't worry much about detritus with high flow it stay suspended in the water column and the corals feed on it....easy!!!!

[Reefin' Dude]

Originally Posted by rgulrich

@Reefin' Dude - I'm not sure what the grail is for your crusade but again, I plead with you, vacuum your reef aquarium if you wish. Please please please understand that some of us have successful aquariums without a siphoning fixation. It works for you - please don't stop. Continue to siphon detritus. I'm encouraging you to go ahead and break it out after reading this and hit the nooks and crannies of your sump, move your rock around, and hook up little colostomy bags if necessary to all of your reef's inhabitants.

What I was speaking to was ***Ammonia in solution***, which all of the research papers I provided state that the vast majority comes from respiration, >>>>>>not decomposition<<<<<<. If you think that is wrong, by all means please call Randy, Marietta, Purdue, and the NIH on it - I'm sure they'd all be interested in your sources. I for one would be very interested in their responses, so please publish them when they are made available.

For your point, yes, when fecal material decomposes the consuming bacteria also respire Ammonia, and when they die and decompose their consumers respire Ammonia in turn - 1.) just not to the amount that is respired at the top of the food chain (this is related to entropy, I believe...I'd have to find that source again) and 2.) until at some point (sometimes sooner rather than later, as is pointed out in a few of the papers I provided after the first pass some of the material assumes a half life of 150-300 years) the waste material is mineralized and rendered inert (non-biodgradable mulm). Yes, many fish farms do recycle their solid wastes material as compost and fertilizer, and in some locales are required to by law - but they recycle their water through a filtration system which contains particulate (for further recycling), biological, algal, and sometimes even chemical depending on bio-load. Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS for short) are fascinating, and this is a growing industry where a lot of the more current research is occurring.

Again, >>I<< am speaking to waste in the form of >>>respired Ammonia<<<, which constitutes the vast majority of waste our aquarium inhabitants produce. I focus the majority of my efforts on addressing the nitrogen cycle with regards to that waste. These efforts simultaneously oxygenate the water and remove some peripheral contaminants as well, while you appear to focus your efforts on siphoning fecal material. I use filter socks to remove detritus (!!!) from solution (!!!), especially after I stir the rubble on the bottom of the aquarium, and I will continue to do so. I use a skimmer to remove some surface-reactive soluble proteinaceous material and provide a massive surface area for gas exchange, occasionally some carbon to provide a little more water clarity, and even use a Polyfilter every now and then to remove stray heavy metals and some organics other methods may have missed. I'm not afraid of even providing some additional surface area for more bacteria, as I carry a pretty heavy fish load as opposed to a real reef (anything over 1" per 1000 gallons is easily overstocked in that comparison). I don't find any of this cumbersome, if I did, I wouldn't be doing this as a hobby.

all of your sources deal with nitrogenous compounds. we need to be also talking about P. that is the point i am trying to get across. yes all of what you say is true and is well proven, but it misses the other half of the nutrient problem completely. P is not released through the gills, it is released through fecal manner. all of the P that goes into an organism will eventually come out (unless that particular organism is increasing in mass). think about how much you would weigh if you incorporated all of the P you took in. all of that P that goes in the system as food is going to stay in there until removed. without the P, there can not be any bacteria to work on the nitrogenous compounds. for that matter C also, back to the original point of the thread. the less total P in a system, the less total biomass that can exist in the system. the more tightly controlled P will be.

i am not saying that there is only one way to keep a reef tank. i am just saying that there is a lot more to look at than nitrogenous compounds when determining what is going on in our systems. nitrogen is not the only eutrophic compound. if we are looking to keep the water quality clean in reef tank, then we also need to be looking at P, and the ways necessary to limit the total P in the system. i do not mean limit the amount of P going into the system, but total P in the system. one needs to control both N and P if one wants to maintain a certain trophic state in their system.

G~

[PhaneSoul]

Gulrich, sorry if this doesn't fit, I work weekends so most of the links recently posted I have only been able to skim, I'll catch up on reading mon-wed.

However I have a question pertaining to detritus and extra food vrs ammonia from fish

If fish give off the majority of ammonia in a system then why is it then when you have a fish death an it isn't swiftly takin care of by others it can quickly raise ammonia levels and cause a mini cycle but if you were to add a new fish to that same system you have a better chance of not causing a mini cycle?

From the way you describe fish contributing the most to ammonia it would appear every time you wanna add a new fish a minicycle would ensue

[rgulrich]

Then we agree on that point - I too, try to limit total P in the system, as well as solution. The challenge for me is I need to support organisms, both micro and macro, that require P as well, in varying forms.

My current approach uses the macro algae to pull it from solution, and hand it off to crustaceans and even back to the fish again. The fecal matter that doesn't get removed by the filter socks is digested by both bacteria and higher life forms such as molluscs, polycheates, and crusteceans (and there are actually a number that dissemble the fecal material for digestion by smaller participants in the food chain). I keep fish that not only consume fecal material (corpophages such as the Tomini Tang referenced earlier) but also a number of fish that rely on alga as their primary food source (the Rabbitfish, Red Sea Purple Tang, and an assortment of blennies). Further down the food chain the Dragonface pipefish mentioned above rely on the micro crusteceans as their food source.

The algae filter runs 24/7, and maintains a very high oxygen saturation level in the reef, as well as a constant pH - all while removing some of these not so desirable substances and producing food for the aquarium inhabitants. I can't really keep the fish and the biodiversity that I have without it, and without some form of detritus in both the aquarium and elsewhere in the system.

Yes, removal of excess Phosphate, as well as any other nutrient, is necessary. Perhaps we both have our reasons for doing it our own ways. You are attempting to remove elements, P included, prior to their being released into solution. I am attempting to use those elements before their eventual removal (via filter socks, skimming, alga harvesting, etc) for further production in the system to maintain more bio diversity. I also feed quite liberally - the 3 harems of Anthias, the shoal of Chromis, and all of their cohorts are rather demanding - and this system can't support their requirements without input, but I don't worry about organics showing up on test results. I designed this system to accommodate that protocol, and it does that quite handily. That also may be why this reef puts on so much mass in such a short period as well. It would be interesting to see, perhaps, what the effects of the various forms of phosphate, and the percentage of their occurrence, is in our aquaria as opposed to the various reef zones.
If we go by these four forms of phosphate in a dilute aqueous state:
Strongly basic conditions, the phosphate ion, PO43-, is prevalent.
Weakly basic conditions, the hydrogen phosphate ion, HPO42-, is most common.
Weakly acid conditions, dihydrogen phosphate ion, H2PO4-, is also most common.
Strongly acid conditions, aqueous phosphoric acid, H3PO4(aq), predominates.
Wouldn't weakly acid to strongly acid conditions arise in the anoxic zones such as micro channels in the rock work, under the rocks or other low water movement areas, or such? Or perhaps under layers of sand or gravel? With a pH of say, 82.-8.3, would the weakly basic and weakly acidic forms predominate in the open water? And perhaps if one uses a kalkwasser reactor, the point where the calcium hydroxide solution mixes with the aquarium water would be considered a strongly basic condition, but would it last long enough for PO43 to prevail, or would it rapidly combine with kalk and fall out of solution?

For the list of questions perhaps we could add: Which of these is more readily assumed by algae and by the other organisms such as coral, fish, and such? Which needs to be "processed" by another organism before it can be assimilated down the food chain? Are all phosphates bad, or are they needed for biological processes such as for replication of RNA and DNA? How much and how is it delivered? Is that delivery system doable in a captive environment? What are the hazards or compromises that must be made for its delivery?

I really do like the questions that arise out of this discussion, as the general topic of biological systems and floral/faunal diversity has fascinated me for...um...a few years now.

While we may not be able to grasp what each other are actually saying at times, I think we both are saying the same thing in our own way: try to provide the best habitat for our charges as best we can. Thanks for helping me re-energize a number of my old research links - the circuits get a bit rusty at times if I'm not out wandering the halls of academia.

Cheers,
Ray

[rgulrich]

@PhaneSoul - I think the answer to your question lies in the old aquarium keeper's phrase "The solution to pollution is dilution". There will of course be a rise in a given bacterial type to accommodate not only the new fish addition, but also the unfortunate and inevitable occasional loss (although it's really quite fascinating to note how long our charges live in captivity vice the wild when well cared for - great tangential research area). Now (and I'm going to use some extremes here for clarity), let's say you have a fish living in a one gallon container quite happily, and the bacteria to support complete nitrification as well as some plants to use the Phosphate (and other elements) portion of our discussion. You decide to provide it some company, and drop in another of the exact same size. At this point you've doubled the biological load on the system, but the bacteria haven't had time yet (they haven't had the food until now) to catch up. Hence a rise in Ammonia first, then Nitrite, etc for the nitrogen cycle. The plants, in a similar manner, need to recognize the availability of the additional "fertilizer" and switch on the various mechanisms to begin a growth spurt. You measure Ammonia and it reads, say for discussion purposes, .04 parts per million (ppm) (from one of Randy's articles above: "concentration of ammonia in the ocean varies substantially, from less than 0.002 ppm to as much as 0.7 ppm", although usually lower than .02 ppm near the surface). This isn't dangerous per se, but let's look at what happens when you're dealing with a larger volume of water.

If we take that one gallon of water now measuring out at .04ppm and pour it into a container with oh, 99 gallons of water, what happens to the concentration of Ammonia? It decreases by a factor of 100 (some liberal rounding of numbers taken for discussion purposes...but I hope you get the drift). If I was to use my system as an example, I have right around 400 gallons of water volume to deal with. The addition of another fish (of reasonable size, now come on...I'm not going to drop a Great White in there...I don't think) won't even show up on the most accurate of test kit I could find. The volume of water in this aquarium (vice the one gallon example above) can accommodate the addition without worry about Ammonia (or subsequent nitrification) toxicity until the bacterial population (and subsequent algal development and everybody else in the biological system) catch up to the increased source of nutrients.

I don't really have any hope of removing a fish if it dies in this reef if I can't find it within reach within a day. The various snails and other detrivores I have in the system make very short work of it. I rarely (knock on wood) lose a fish as it is, as even the small ones kind of enjoy hanging out for extended periods of time in the reef. Although I did have a Trachyphyllia sp. consume an ocellaris clownfish...

With smaller systems, yes, a higher rate of maintenance and limitations on stocking levels are called for. Water changes (dilution) help alleviate the additional burden placed on the denitrification workforce (both microbe and higher forms of life) in the advent of new arrivals or a loss. I hope the above verbal illustration helps.

Cheers,
Ray

[PhaneSoul]

I glad we agree on phos. That's the important thing. I could care less what my nitrate levels are. No phos for the zoox to feed off of it must turn to the coral to feed off it's waste to get the p it needs and therefore from what I understand, no matter how high your nitrates are it will not poison the coral.

So let's revisit this ammonia thing. Now I'm not talking bacterial load and all that jazz. I'm talking ammonia production. One could say fish are the main producers of ammonia. As much as I'd like to call bs on that, it's probably true for many more then not, but only because were not sitting there feeding constantly. I think feeding has much more of a potential to create ammonia then fish.

To get what I'm getting at I'll describe my system. First off I feed a lot. I'm not talking a cube of food for several fish, I'm talking maybe two or three cubes for only 6 fish over the course of a day. Obviously all that food isn't going to the fish. So it's going to sit somewhere (eventually) and rot.

From what I understand from the post where randy explained how much ammonia a yellow tang produced, it was rather a small amount per day. But since they produce that small amount 24/7 it's a main producer. But what's going to produce more ammonia that yellow tang or the amount of fish food I just fed. Obviously it's something that varies tan to tank, but to say fish are the main producers of ammonia I think is inaccurate. Maybe due to the fact that they produce it 24/7, but then again I'm feeding the same amount every day. So in my system what's producing more ammonia, the 6 fish I have or the 3 cubes of food I feed where probably a good cube is left to rot on the sandbed?

To finish here is something to think about. Let's say you have an empty gallon bowl, you add a fish, what's the ppm of ammonia after one day? (I have never cycled a tank with a fish so I do not know). But I do know that if you throw a piece of shrimp about the same size as a small damsel it makes a 30g raise up to over 5ppm .

See what I'm sayin? Fish might be the primary producers of ammonia depending on how the system is run, but rotting food defiantly has the potential to out produce fish in ammonia production.

And again, it's just something I've been thinking about, haven't had time to look at how much ammonia a fish produces exactly, just that thread I linked a while ago, behind on reading the recent links posted. But then again to me it's not important, phosphate is

[rgulrich]

@PhaneSoul - again I think we need to drill down a few steps. It's not the piece of shrimp itself that produces Ammonia, it is the biological activity that causes it's decomposition - the bacteria working on that piece of shrimp. If your system is used to "eating" a dead piece of shrimp a day, with no fish and no other forms of life other than bacteria present, they will be able to handle it without a reading whatsoever on any test kit. This is basically how sewage treatment plants work.

So what I'm saying is, in essence, if your aquarium's bacteria can handle a dead shrimp a day with no speed bumps, then the next day's dead shrimp won't make a difference. You are culturing bacteria at that point to handle a given bioload, just like agar in a petri dish. If you withdraw the source of nutrition for those bacteria for a given period of time, that particular species will die off, give rise to another species that will consume their waste, and so on for a few generations until the nutrient load (energy source) is mineralized and/or given on in gaseous form. Nothing magic.

So, if you feed your fish very well, there will be a given bacterial load to handle not only the fish waste, but the bacterial waste as well. I think there's a few charts out there for bacterial decomposition rates at varying temperatures, pH values, and a couple other factors, but a good marker is soon as an organism dies or is left uneaten, the bacteria begin to work on it and begin respiring a litany of waste products - decomposition. If that organism or food is not immediately removed from solution, the bacterial populations rise at a given rate (among many variables would be the digestibility of the food source, oxygen availability, competition, etc) until the source of nutrition is exhausted or, again, the source of nutrition is removed from solution.

The amount of Ammonia fish respire is directly proportional to the amount of nutrition they receive (please don't shut down the food because of this) and their metabolic rate. The same goes for coral, shrimp, snails, and pretty much everything else down to bacteria. For an interesting read look up the decomposition of coral mucus. Why? I have a 4X8 hydroponics system full of frags the routinely collects a healthy amount of detritus on the bottom and in the sump. No fish, nothing else, just coral frags. At any rate, the mucus itself holds some pretty interesting properties, including some that act as antibacterial agents. That complicates matters a bit...

Ah well, gotta go. Have a horse showing up shortly and have to prep the barn.
Cheers,
Ray

[PhaneSoul]

I was trying to se aside the thoughts on the bio filter to show where I'm coming from. I know plenty about how it works, what I'm trying to show is if you take one fish that weighs say 1 ounce on a healthy diet it will not produce more ammonia then the ammonia being produced by the heterotrophic bacteria that are breaking down 1 ounce of food.

This would make the bacteria the main producers of ammonia and not fish

At least that's what I'm trying to get at

And don't worry, I know a lot about what were doing, not so much about fish and critters, but my fare share about bacteria and phosphates.

[rgulrich]

@PhaneSoul - I think it's more a matter of total volume of import and export (by weight), not necessarily what organism does the intermediary processing. These might help clarify things a bit:
Chemistry And The Aquarium: Phosphorus: Algae's Best Friend
By Randy Holmes-Farley
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/9/chemistry

Nitrogen- versus phosphorus-limited growth and sources of nutrients for coral reef macroalgae
http://link.springer.com/article/10....Fs002270050407

And for a little reading on the biological processes of fecal material, here’s an excerpt of the below. The time frame is of interest in this excerpt and is relevant to the course of this discussion.
Feces in Aquatic Ecosystems
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org.../51/7/537.full
“After egestion, fecal pellets characteristically leach dissolved organic matter (DOM) into the water (Jumars et al. 1989, UrbanRich 1999). Both carbon and nitrogen are lost from pellets in the first days after egestion, and if undisturbed, the pellets of many animals remain the same size as at egestion but have reduced mass (Gonzalez and Biddanda 1990). Although a small proportion of pellets is lost from surface waters, it is important to note that all leached DOM is likely to be retained within the photic zone (UrbanRich 1999). Pellets are colonized rapidly by invading microorganisms (Yoon et al. 1996) that may be attracted by the leaching DOM, but then attach and commence conditioning, which leads to a decrease in carbon content as carbon is converted to carbon dioxide by microbial respiration. Feces undergoing conditioning by invading, or resident, microorganisms have higher microbial activity than other detritus, at least in samples taken from a stream (Ward and Cummins 1979), and this is typically a pattern that shows a peak 2–3 days after egestion (Hargrave 1976). Inorganic and organic materials from the ambient water (including metals; Fisher et al. 1991) also become adsorbed to the binding mucus, and mucus-rich aggregates are good bacterial substrates (Hargrave 1976).”

Cheers,
Ray

[Reefin' Dude]

i think this is a great place to bring in the last few post from this thread:

the secret to colorful,healthy corals....obvious to some,elusive to many

they talk about the total amount of calories (resources) to support any give organism. what it takes for each link in the chain.

i have always hated the phrase "the solution to pollution is dilution". it is wrong on so many counts. it gives the perception that we really have no control over what is going on, and we just have to react, instead of going after the source of the pollution. like the analogy of using the bathroom fan to remove the stink instead of just flushing the toilet.

G~

[rgulrich]

Or if the amount is too small for us to measure, we probably shouldn't worry about it...Hmm...

But perhaps the post above should be read first, where it states (for those that can't take the time to peruse the text provided) the basic half-life of organic matter in fecal material is 96 hours. Loose translation: if you don't remove the feces within the first three days of their excretion, you've...oh heck, why bother. If one really doesn't want to look at the facts, one won't. My herbivores love the reef I've provided, even if I have to supplement their diet extensively. Perhaps one should ask the question (and do some *&%(&%$ research for once) why are there so many herbivorous fishes on healthy reefs? Why are there so many varieties of algae on reefs? Why are they not choking out the coral? What is the estimated biomass of algae on healthy reefs? What happens to make them choke out the coral? Oh - that research has already been done, but I've grown weary of providing all of the peer-reviewed material here.

[Reefin' Dude]

if herbivores are your must have organism, then you have your perfect system. that is the hope of everyone who starts a reef. to sustain their must have organism for the life of organisms. i try very hard to make the point that the environment of the system needs to be designed around your must have organism.

my issue is when a recommendation is made that does not take into account what the posters must have organism is. some systems need to be designed for nutrient export, while other need to be designed for nutrient accumulation. we can not say that all systems need to be designed the same.

we are talking half life here. after 96 hours half of the excretion is still there. another 3 days later half of that is gone, and so on. during those 6 days though the system is being fed. so more material is coming into the system. we are no longer dealing with that first batch of excretion, there is now another batch that has a new half life clock ticking. as one can see it will not take long for the amount of excretion to keep building up.

one of the first signs of eutrophication on a healthy reef is algae showing up. the chicken and the egg syndrome here.

EUTROPHICATION AND CORAL REEFS--SOME EXAMPLES IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF LAGOON

The effects of eutrophication-related alterations to coral reef communities on agents and rates of bioerosion (Reunion Island,Indian Ocean)

Eutrophication & Coral Reefs

G~

[HHN]

Originally Posted by eddiereefs

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

if you have the time, this is a very interesting read on carbon dosing in general.

+ 1 on this article. Would be interesting to note if they have followed up on which bacteria remain after skimming and what effect that skewed quantity has on the overall health of the tank.

[Dan_P]

Originally Posted by HHN

+ 1 on this article. Would be interesting to note if they have followed up on which bacteria remain after skimming and what effect that skewed quantity has on the overall health of the tank.

I haven’t see any further studies. The article certainly was interesting and shows how complicated aquaria are. The article also shows how difficult it is to conduct well controlled biology experiments, a caution for those drawing conclusions from anecdotal data.