Effects of tap water on Nitrifying during Rip-Clean method: Experiment

[sixty_reefer]

I guess my goal of this thread was if someone posted and said hey, I want to take my rocks out and wash them in the sink and scrub the crap out of them... is this safe to do?

I wanted to be able to say yes, completely safe. Or probably not the best choice, imo.

If someone want to go into the details of what's in their tap water, what type of rock they have, their bioload, etc etc etc. And figuring out all those combinations to determine if it's safe.... More power to them I suppose.

But it wouldn't be something I would personally suggest as being a safe option.

What happened to instant cycling? Wasn’t that part of your goal also

 

[LRT]

Anything from a municipal water company will have disinfectants in it.

Hi Randy. I always wondered why scrub and rinse never had an effect on coraline( on my rock) but typically wiped out algae and dinos whenever ive Rip Cleaned my rock. Could it be the disinfectants in tap do more harm to the "bad" algae ive battled but have no real effect on the good coraline thats continued to grow?
Why is the coraline unphased by scrub and rinse?

 

[LRT]

I guess my goal of this thread was if someone posted and said hey, I want to take my rocks out and wash them in the sink and scrub the crap out of them... is this safe to do?

I wanted to be able to say yes, completely safe. Or probably not the best choice, imo.

If someone want to go into the details of what's in their tap water, what type of rock they have, their bioload, etc etc etc. And figuring out all those combinations to determine if it's safe.... More power to them I suppose.

But it wouldn't be something I would personally suggest as being a safe option.

I think you would have to absoloutely say no thats a horrible idea to anyone wanting to scrub dead white rock.
You would absoloutely have to look at it as case by case scenario and the rock itself would have to be the most important aspect of it all correct?
People Rip Clean rock for a reason.
One wouldnt Rip Clean a rock with 0 algae on it for no apparent reason right?
So yeah its totally reef dependant and 100% dependant on the rock,sand and water in each particular reef.

 

[Coxey81]

What happened to instant cycling? Wasn’t that part of your goal also

More so for me to to do and see.

The test wasn't set up to test that.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1 i only got one request for you to add if possible.

day 1.

1. Fill tank with 4 gallons of tank water (very important)

2. Add 4 lbs of live rock from your tank (sump or display) but try to mention your choice.

3. Add 2ppm of ammonia (first try and figure the concentration if possible?) and observe for 24h

This should give you a good baseline to start the test and more accurate information to the first test of the op. I feel that we all just looking too much into the second test completely discarded the first test.

Sorry - I'm not understanding. It is my impression that this is how @Coxey81's test was done? I dont the difference between what you're saying above and the way @Coxey81's test was done (I thought)

1. Add rock, ammonia, water - to 2 ppm per directions. Measure ammonia, etc
2. Day 2 - see if ammonia was processed (in his experiment it was not) - continue to observe until it is processed.
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until 2 ppm is reliably processed in a certain time

FYI,

My plan was to make up the '2 ppm' ammonia and seawater solution 'first' - and then add 4 gallons into the tank, i.e. - fresh saltwater will be used for each test. 2 PPM ammonia will be confirmed before that water is added to the tank.

 

[MnFish1]

More so for me to to do and see.

The test wasn't set up to test that.

In a sense it was - and to me it was the most interesting result. It directly shows that nitrifying bacteria do not completely cover every surface in the tank completely - independent of 'ammonia/food' input. Instead - as I would have expected - as more ammonia was added day by day - more bacteria grew on the rocks - and eventually the same amount of rock was able to reliably process 2 ppm ammonia in 30 hours or so. My guess is that if you had taken THAT rock, put it into a new aquarium (without rinsing) - it would have processed the same 2 PPM in 30 hours. (i.e. kind of an 'instant cycle')?

 

[sixty_reefer]

More so for me to to do and see.

The test wasn't set up to test that.

Quote from your firs post.

“1. Instant cycling a tank with rock or bio media.”

the fact that you are have discarded your own experience and only focus on tap water, do raise questions on the honesty of the hole thing, you also didn’t expect me to join in. My test shows 45% lost with a full gain in 48h. Should we be telling people about that to?

 

[Coxey81]

In a sense it was - and to me it was the most interesting result. It directly shows that nitrifying bacteria do not completely cover every surface in the tank completely - independent of 'ammonia/food' input. Instead - as I would have expected - as more ammonia was added day by day - more bacteria grew on the rocks - and eventually the same amount of rock was able to reliably process 2 ppm ammonia in 30 hours or so. My guess is that if you had taken THAT rock, put it into a new aquarium (without rinsing) - it would have processed the same 2 PPM in 30 hours. (i.e. kind of an 'instant cycle')?

Ah, yes, in terms of instant cycling by moving all the rock from one tank to another... yes.

As far as instant cycling with a sponge filter or a piece of rock from a sump... I don't think this test concluded anything definitive.

 

[Coxey81]

Quote from your firs post.

“1. Instant cycling a tank with rock or bio media.”

the fact that you are have discarded your own experience and only focus on tap water, do raise questions on the honesty of the hole thing, you also didn’t expect me to join in. My test shows 45% lost with a full gain in 48h. Should we be telling people about that to?

Your skipping the title and the fact that I said it was to answer some questions I had about some things.

Go back to the thread this is about. In it you will see what the test was planned for.

And that I mentioned to garf I would probably need to prove the the bacteria was present in the first place.

Remember... this wasn't set up to be a test that was going to be judged and every detail gone over.

I wouldnt have turned my op into a high-school teacher for a science experiment. Lol

 

[MnFish1]

Quote from your firs post.

“1. Instant cycling a tank with rock or bio media.”

the fact that you are have discarded your own experience and only focus on tap water, do raise questions on the honesty of the hole thing, you also didn’t expect me to join in. My test shows 45% lost with a full gain in 48h. Should we be telling people about that to?

IMHO - its been clearly discussed that your two experiments were different - and that your results were different. There are plusses and minuses to both methods and as to which conclusions can be drawn - and there will be to whatever I do as well. I don't think anyone has been 'dishonest' - do you think that might be a little strong?

 

[Coxey81]

Quote from your firs post.

“1. Instant cycling a tank with rock or bio media.”

the fact that you are have discarded your own experience and only focus on tap water, do raise questions on the honesty of the hole thing, you also didn’t expect me to join in. My test shows 45% lost with a full gain in 48h. Should we be telling people about that to?

The way I consider a 45% loss is possibly safe. If you have rock that is able to process 4ppm like yours was, then yes.

If you have rock that is able to only process 1ppm and you have a 45% loss?

I guess it depends on your bioload.

 

[LRT]

Would yall mind if I jump in on the experimentals?
Id love to put a real living reef application to this with real ocean rock variable
First I'm going to look tonight and see if I can actually find algae on a rock or 2. Set up my 10 gallon, scrub and rinse the rock as I described and see what happens.
I have an order of Seneye slides on the way. I'll also be tripple checking with Api and Red Sea just for fun.
Probably not this weekend but hopefully next.
I have a feeling we will see a bit of instastock as well so we can kill at least a few birds with one stone.

 

[MnFish1]

The way I consider a 45% loss is possibly safe. If you have rock that is able to process 4ppm like yours was.

If you have rock that is able to only process 1ppm and you have a 45% loss?

I guess it depends on your bioload.

Of course - in the best of all worlds (which I'm not asking you to do) one would wait until the ammonia is processed to near zero. Recheck that 2 Ppm is processed - then do the rinse to replicate what you did already - OR instead of adding 2 ppm to the rinse - add .25- .5 - 1 ppm each day. My guess is it would be processed. Your results are still fairly consistent with @sixty_reefer IMHO. He lost about 50% you lost about 80 percent. Either way - you both lost 'bacteria' - and either way - rather than adding the full 2 ppm (which would not occur in a 'real tank') had you both added ammonia slowly (like the @Lasse method) - you would have seen little change. BUT - as discussed already - your experiment was designed the way it was - and thats great. IMHO - without replicating both of what you did at least a couple more times - there is no way for anyone to say that there was a 'significant' difference between the results of the 2 experiments

 

[Coxey81]

Quote from your firs post.

“1. Instant cycling a tank with rock or bio media.”

the fact that you are have discarded your own experience and only focus on tap water, do raise questions on the honesty of the hole thing, you also didn’t expect me to join in. My test shows 45% lost with a full gain in 48h. Should we be telling people about that to?

But yes, like I said I plan to post all findings. And let everyone come to their own conclusions.

I'm just saying what mine are.

 

[Lasse]

My test shows 45% lost with a full gain in 48h. Should we be telling people about that to?

As I had shown before - your and @Coxey81 test runs can´t be compared. And also - Coxey81 test kill the proposal of instant cycling with the first add of ammonia. Instant cycle says occur if you take a rock or whatever from a system with one adapted biolad into a system with higher bioload and you will see no problems at all. his tests show that the biofilm had to adapt to the higher load - and it did. i have seen the claims that the rocks are full of hungry nitrifiers independently of present bioload and when it is there - no adaption time will be needed - all over different threads

there is no way for anyone to say that there was a 'significant' difference between the results of the 2 experiments

I disagree - Corey81´s test only was affected of the nitrification cycle - sixty_reefer´s had both nitrification and photosynthesis in his test. Corey81`s test report no stall in in the nitrite oxidizing step - Sixty_reefers´s test stall a little in the NO process that indicate that rather high amount of his ammonia gone the path of photosynthesis

@sixty_reefer did you do a second test after the first has shown a 45 % decline?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

As I had shown before - your and @Coxey81 test runs can´t be compared. And also - Coxey81 test kill the proposal of instant cycling with the first add of ammonia. Instant cycle says occur if you take a rock or whatever from a system with one biolad into a system with higher bioload and you will see no problems at all. his tests show that the biofilm had to adapt to the higher load - and it did


I disagree - Corey81´s test only was affected of the nitrification cycle - sixty_reefer´s had both nitrification and photosynthesis in his test. Corey81`s test report no stall in in the nitrite oxidizing step - Sixty_reefers´s test stall a little in the NO process that indicate that rather high amount of his ammonia gone the path of photosynthesis

@sixty_reefer did you do a second test after the first has shown a 45 % decline?

Sincerely Lasse

I was not clear enough - I did not mean to say that the 'experiments' or the 'results' were the same. Only that because only 1 test was done in each case (both of which showed a reduction) - its impossible to say whether for example - next time Sixtyreefer would have had an 85 percent reduction and Coxey would have had a 50% reduction. I just meant that without replication - its impossible to conclude. I agree with your thought that there SHOULD be less reduction in Sixty's test - because he also had photosynthetic organisms present. Plus old water, plus various other things.

 

[Coxey81]

Would yall mind if I jump in on the experimentals?
Id love to put a real living reef application to this with real ocean rock variable
First I'm going to look tonight and see if I can actually find algae on a rock or 2. Set up my 10 gallon, scrub and rinse the rock as I described and see what happens.
I have an order of Seneye slides on the way. I'll also be tripple checking with Api and Red Sea just for fun.
Probably not this weekend but hopefully next.
I have a feeling we will see a bit of instastock as well so we can kill at least a few birds with one stone.

Go for it.

I'll be around and like to see the results, but would prefer if everyone starts there own threads for their experiments.

 

[Lasse]

Go for it.

I'll be around and like to see the results, but would prefer if everyone starts there own threads for their experiments.

A good suggestion - but please keep on your measurements till we see nearly zero in ammonia - after that I will not "hunt" you anymore

Sincerely Lasse

 

[LRT]

Go for it.

I'll be around and like to see the results, but would prefer if everyone starts there own threads for their experiments.

10-4 i was just thinking about that.
I'll start a thread of my own looking at real life scenarios that can be applied to actual living reefs. It probably wouldn't line up with this one either way as I won't be testing for nitrites either way. Not even for fun so it wouldn't fit here

 

[MnFish1]

Would yall mind if I jump in on the experimentals?
Id love to put a real living reef application to this with real ocean rock variable
First I'm going to look tonight and see if I can actually find algae on a rock or 2. Set up my 10 gallon, scrub and rinse the rock as I described and see what happens.
I have an order of Seneye slides on the way. I'll also be tripple checking with Api and Red Sea just for fun.
Probably not this weekend but hopefully next.
I have a feeling we will see a bit of instastock as well so we can kill at least a few birds with one stone.

Without bioload, of a defined type - what are you expecting to see? What kind of livestock are you going to have in the tank? to produce ammonia?

This would not be a 'real-life' ocean experiment - IMHO because - a 'real life experiment' would have a tank - with x fish, coral, etc - and your 'one rock'. The ammonia would be zero (hopefully) - then you take the rock out and rinse it and put it back in - and see what happens. Unless you have a baseline measurement showing that your rock can process the bioload that you are putting in, followed by a rinse - IMHO - it is not a 'real life ocean experiment'.