Experiment: Does nitrifying bacteria survive a month without ammonia or other supplementation

[BeanAnimal]

An N of 1 but I fallowed a tank for two years. No light, no feeding, no heat, only BS inverts like pods, worms, only thing on was pumps. After over two years it was still cycled and I added fish, corals, and inverts on day one of testing it.

Energy in - stuff living and dying, feeding fauna. NNR still occurs. Likely some reduced capacity, but still maybe plenty to toss new fish in without a hiccup. Sounds very reasonable.

 

[MnFish1]

But there is not nothing in the tank. There is a ton of micro and macro fauna living and dying. When you remove the outside food source, a decline begins and some of the perished become food for the living. I assume that the bacteria in a bottle start to die and that death provides food for those that are still alive. As it were, there is likely some calculable half life.

You chose an arbitrary number (unless I missed something). If my office staff can process 2 million letters a day and I cut the staff in half, they may still be able to process 2 million letters a day. Until you find their processing capacity, you can't measure what cutting their numbers means. I hope that makes sense.

EDIT: Wow did not realize how old this was. Anyway

Actually you're right - but - you're also incorrect - and I'm not sure what 'arbitrary number' you're talking about - if its the amount of ammonia added - it was the instructions from Dr. Tim's. The fact is - in the absence of ammonia, some nitrifying bacterial strains can 'go dormant' - in the absence of other things dying.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Actually you're right - but - you're also incorrect - and I'm not sure what 'arbitrary number' you're talking about - if its the amount of ammonia added - it was the instructions from Dr. Tim's. The fact is - in the absence of ammonia, some nitrifying bacterial strains can 'go dormant' - in the absence of other things dying.

Let me clarify - The "arbitrary" part is that we don't know the actual (real) upper limit of their capacity to process. So the 2ppm threshold may be so low that only a fraction of the bacteria on the tank are needed to process it in (t) time.

Yes, I would expect different strains to behave differently depending on abundance of food.

Nonetheless, not an argument, just an observation.

 

[MnFish1]

Let me clarify - The "arbitrary" part is that we don't know the actual (real) upper limit of their capacity to process. So the 2ppm threshold may be so low that only a fraction of the bacteria on the tank are needed to process it in (t) time.

Yes, I would expect different strains to behave differently depending on abundance of food.

Nonetheless, not an argument, just an observation.

Right I wasn't taking it as an argument. I think, though, that 2ppm is chosen because if the rock can process 2 ppm in 24 hours, there would be very few tanks (unless there was a problem) - that would generate that much ammonia in 24 hours unless there is a problem. Edit - it's also the level that at least a couple bacteria in a bottle companies recommend.

 

[PotatoPig]

Edit - it's also the level that at least a couple bacteria in a bottle companies recommend.

I wonder how much of that recommendation is due to the actual cycling requirements vs how much it’s geared around ensuring the nutrient concentrations are in a range that will give very clear test results, even for beginners.

 

[MnFish1]

My bad. Recalled a year but that was refrigerated. One and Only advertised as six months so are we doubting that? I believe heterotrophic can go beyond a year and recall some strains up to seven. Interested to see your results bow that you've pushed it further. Although each time you introduce ammonia does that not need to start the clock again?

Simpler might just be to grab a bottle and examine samples under a microscope to see if still viable at different points in time. I've thought about doing that for craps and giggles or to ensure the bottle I'm introducing is still viable considering I don't know what shipping stress it underwent.

Yes - I agree with you - the question, however, comes up not infrequently as to how long a tank can remain without 'feeding'. PS - I also agree with you - that there are more bacteria in the rock that are not obligate autotrophs that can also survive whether utilizing other 'chemicals' in the water, or going dormant (in some cases forming spores).

 

[MnFish1]

But there is not nothing in the tank. There is a ton of micro and macro fauna living and dying. When you remove the outside food source, a decline begins and some of the perished become food for the living. I assume that the bacteria in a bottle start to die and that death provides food for those that are still alive. As it were, there is likely some calculable half life.

You chose an arbitrary number (unless I missed something). If my office staff can process 2 million letters a day and I cut the staff in half, they may still be able to process 2 million letters a day. Until you find their processing capacity, you can't measure what cutting their numbers means. I hope that makes sense.

EDIT: Wow did not realize how old this was. Anyway

Yes - It was older - I didn't even get a notification. The number I chose was the number used on for example Dr. Tim's protocol - of adding ammonia to a new tank to 2 ppm, and in addition to other parts of his protocol, once the tank can process this 'its cycled'.

 

[MnFish1]

Let me clarify - The "arbitrary" part is that we don't know the actual (real) upper limit of their capacity to process. So the 2ppm threshold may be so low that only a fraction of the bacteria on the tank are needed to process it in (t) time.

Yes, I would expect different strains to behave differently depending on abundance of food.

Nonetheless, not an argument, just an observation.

Unfortunately, I don't know if I already answered this. But - we kind of do. In that it's widely known that ammonia kills bacteria (thats why so many cleaning products contain it). I believe the source was from Dr. Tim was that ammonia levels > 5 ppm slow down the cycling procedure using his methods.

 

[jda]

I know that I am way late to this party, but there are going to be differences in tanks with ecosystems vs filters.

I don't have anything to add to these tanks described on page one, but in my QT tanks with just HOB filters and bare bottom, I do get an ammonia spike with Hannah Egg Test kit for about two days to around .20 with just the waste that is in the fish already. The tanks go back down to near-zero after about 48 hours as the AOB populations seem to quickly rebound. Then, I will slowly start to feed the fish.

Anybody do this same type of test on sterile type of tanks? If the ecosystem type of tank is on one and and the sterile tank is on the other, then surely there will be plenty in the middle, but it could show a range.

 

[GARRIGA]

Unfortunately, I don't know if I already answered this. But - we kind of do. In that it's widely known that ammonia kills bacteria (thats why so many cleaning products contain it). I believe the source was from Dr. Tim was that ammonia levels > 5 ppm slow down the cycling procedure using his methods.

That's pertinent to the bacteria he cultures and found in aquariums according to him and that in the past we assumed we were culturing the bacteria found in waste water that can exceed 25 ppm ammonia. Thinking back to the 80s, much of what we do based on waste management. No clue on accuracy but he knows way more than me and when cycling I stick to the 5 ppm maximum for both nitrification of ammonia and nitrites.

 

[GARRIGA]

I know that I am way late to this party, but there are going to be differences in tanks with ecosystems vs filters.

I don't have anything to add to these tanks described on page one, but in my QT tanks with just HOB filters and bare bottom, I do get an ammonia spike with Hannah Egg Test kit for about two days to around .20 with just the waste that is in the fish already. The tanks go back down to near-zero after about 48 hours as the AOB populations seem to quickly rebound. Then, I will slowly start to feed the fish.

Anybody do this same type of test on sterile type of tanks? If the ecosystem type of tank is on one and and the sterile tank is on the other, then surely there will be plenty in the middle, but it could show a range.

Have you considered using ozone with UV-C in QT to convert ammonia to nitrates? I'm thinking being short term the management of nitrates can be controlled via WC or just ignored until it exceeds acceptable levels based on organism being treated. Going to experiment with this to see how it impacts carbon dosing by protecting the filtration media from the affects of ozone. Also need to process nitrites formed by ammonia not processed by the UV/Ozone and expect no water bound bacteria to exist although on Reef Dudes one had used 35% hydrogen peroxide for euronema and post biome testing found a thriving bacterial community. Only one way to know. Do it.

 

[MnFish1]

I know that I am way late to this party, but there are going to be differences in tanks with ecosystems vs filters.

I don't have anything to add to these tanks described on page one, but in my QT tanks with just HOB filters and bare bottom, I do get an ammonia spike with Hannah Egg Test kit for about two days to around .20 with just the waste that is in the fish already. The tanks go back down to near-zero after about 48 hours as the AOB populations seem to quickly rebound. Then, I will slowly start to feed the fish.

Anybody do this same type of test on sterile type of tanks? If the ecosystem type of tank is on one and and the sterile tank is on the other, then surely there will be plenty in the middle, but it could show a range.

I would look at my experiment - which basically took rock, put into a sterile tank with a measured amount of ammonia. however, IMHO - a bottled bacteria (of the correct type - which I think is a Fritz product) - is an easy fix for people having ammonia problems. @Dr. Reef also did similar experiments with more 'sterile ' tanks - which showed the same results basically

 

[The_Paradox]

I’ve never bought the stuff but what is the expiration date on “bottled bacteria”?

 

[MnFish1]

I’ve never bought the stuff but what is the expiration date on “bottled bacteria”?

Many of the products are not 'obligate autotrophs' - the ones that are (Fritz - at a minimum - have a temperature guideline as well as an expiration date). Many others are heterotrophs - that can sporulate - and be dormant in a bottle for longer - and most bottles (just like test kits) - have an expiration date

 

[The_Paradox]

Many of the products are not 'obligate autotrophs' - the ones that are (Fritz - at a minimum - have a temperature guideline as well as an expiration date). Many others are heterotrophs - that can sporulate - and be dormant in a bottle for longer - and most bottles (just like test kits) - have an expiration date

I’m assuming the exp date is months though. I miss the old days of getting a filter pad out of your buddies or LFSs tank.

 

[MnFish1]

I’m assuming the exp date is months though. I miss the old days of getting a filter pad out of your buddies or LFSs tank.

I honestly can't remember - my recollection is that the refrigeration mandatory are months. But - I honestly haven't looked into this issue much since my experiments - and especially @Dr. Reef 's - which seem to clearly show benefit. Beyond 'new cycling science'

 

[MnFish1]

I’m assuming the exp date is months though. I miss the old days of getting a filter pad out of your buddies or LFSs tank.

You can still do that - with appropriate quarantine...

 

[The_Paradox]

You can still do that - with appropriate quarantine...

I wouldn’t even quarantine. It’s probably the same water your first fish came out of.

 

[ColorMeGone]

This thread is the closest I have come in my search for an answer.
My dry rock has been cycling in a 10 gal. tank. After using Dr. Tim's ammonia and all in one I have a completed cycle in 25 days. PH 7.8, Ammonia 0, Nitrites 0, Nitrates 10, salinity 1.026. I need to keep this rock cycled for 2 more months before I move and will then start my new nano display tank. Should I add a fish or two or maybe add some ammonia once a week or so to keep my rock cycled until ready to use?
Thanks

 

[brandon429]

ColorMeGone

there's not a time anyone on our reef board has seen a cycle fail + inability to carry life after day 25 in reefing. it's never been found in any digital testing for nh3 control ever uploaded to the web


any arrangement we can use for cycling, nobody has seen one take longer than 25 days to handle a common starting reef bioload. Any question about cycle starvation implies the respondent has seen an example of a cycle starving, and none have.

not one poster, not one book author, not one youtuber, not anyone. the reason your tank would be ok if you didn't feed it is because at no time has anyone here seen any starved cycled at day 25, to be able to assign a cause. would appreciate seeing the link if so.

This means that any variation in bacterial population up or down that occurs within the confines of a home reef tank won't degrade a cycle by day 25 after establishment. The cycle will just hold until you request it to step up and handle more loading on demand with bioload reinstatement. you would need to dry it, freeze it, boil it or give it sustained antibiotics to kill the biofilter, starvation doesn't occur in a home reef tank.

in order to demonstrate cycle starvation in a reef tank, a reef tank that is cycled must be the testbed.