Seneye Experiments and Cycling

[Harold999]

Par was right on money with brs investigates within 15 but alot closer in alot of spots and if you hold it just right on the edges of light.

That ship has sailed though. Current Seneye's show par values twice as high as they should be, they are totally off.
We still don't know what's causing this. Could be they changed the sensor into a crappy one or they introduced a bug in the firmware at some point.
See Parkersreef on Youtube for a video about this.

 

[taricha]

With that as my reference point, the 14 day experiment seems to take too long. The 65 hour rate is “normal”. @taricha is doing a nitrification study with little aquaria. He has data to share.

This below data is with 3 tanks setup with dry sand, the worst "live" rock that petco offers and biospira.
After 9 days traditional fishless cycline schedule (adding ~1ppm every day or two) this is the resulting ammonia consumption rate.

The blue line tank got no ammonia feedings. It was just set up and biospira added and allowed to "cure" for 9 days. is consumed ~0.5ppm / day total ammonia-nitrogen (TAN).
The red and green lines are separate tanks that got fed ammonia "cycled".
They depleted ammonia too fast - before my first check, so I had to re-dose. Their consumptions were both ~1.8ppm TAN per day after the 9 day cycle.

One and Only is a bit slower than biospira, and if you don't vigorously shake the bottle, then the particulates that have most of the bacteria on them settle at the bottom of the bottle, and may miss getting added.

 

[Pizza2049]

What a great thread to read. I am in the process of cycling my tank now and also was interested in the Seneye. Great reviews when it comes to PAR readings but not so much on PH etc. I think I’ll invest in a Hydros.thanks for taking the time to narrow down the science!

 

[MnFish1]

This below data is with 3 tanks setup with dry sand, the worst "live" rock that petco offers and biospira.
After 9 days traditional fishless cycline schedule (adding ~1ppm every day or two) this is the resulting ammonia consumption rate.

The blue line tank got no ammonia feedings. It was just set up and biospira added and allowed to "cure" for 9 days. is consumed ~0.5ppm / day total ammonia-nitrogen (TAN).
The red and green lines are separate tanks that got fed ammonia "cycled".
They depleted ammonia too fast - before my first check, so I had to re-dose. Their consumptions were both ~1.8ppm TAN per day after the 9 day cycle.

One and Only is a bit slower than biospira, and if you don't vigorously shake the bottle, then the particulates that have most of the bacteria on them settle at the bottom of the bottle, and may miss getting added.

I do not understand (maybe I'm stupid) - what this is attempting to show. Biospira with nothing added is not 'curing rock' - According to the directions on the label - biospira should (and probably would) have done this on day 1 rather than waiting 9 days. What am I missing?

 

[taricha]

I do not understand (maybe I'm stupid) - what this is attempting to show. Biospira with nothing added is not 'curing rock' - According to the directions on the label - biospira should (and probably would) have done this on day 1 rather than waiting 9 days. What am I missing?

Your interpretation is the same as mine. No added ammonia - I expect the nitrifying population is not much different on day 9 than day 1.

I should have been clearer what question I was trying to answer.

This is just a data point to help interpret this post:

So after 65 hours the smaller rock bucket processed 1.5 ppm ammonia. Comparing this to the 2 large chunk experiment which took 14 days... Not sure if I should go ahead to rebleach the small rock chunks and try and get similar results but everything was sterilized prior and I used the same 10 ml dose to Dr. Tims. Hard to believe it went that fast... Think the seneye could have transfered some additional bacteria? I had it sitting in fresh SW (with tap) for 24 hours while I prepared the 2nd bucket... Verified that its close enough to zero with API.

so if the Question is whether 65 hours to process 1.5ppm ammonia is weirdly fast or is 14 days to do a similar task weirdly slow - the answer is like @Dan_P suggested: 65 hours is normal, and 14 days is weirdly slow.

 

[LRT]

That ship has sailed though. Current Seneye's show par values twice as high as they should be, they are totally off.
We still don't know what's causing this. Could be they changed the sensor into a crappy one or they introduced a bug in the firmware at some point.
See Parkersreef on Youtube for a video about this.

Right on. I remember seeing they had issue with faulty lens throwing off par but corrected and fixed that for folks.
I bought mine used from a reefer that set up lights, cleaned it and boxed it back up. Came with original slide still in package not used. Cant remember exactly but think he said it sat in closet for year or so I got one of the older models.
I did spot check mine to apogee originally and found it within 15 par in most spots until I got to edges of light and started reading to low side but if you tilt it just right you can get it close. I used mine as a Guage and it was acceptable at the time. But having to "tilt" machine just right to get it to read properly on edges may not be acceptable especially when setting up light first time and not knowing what your looking for.
Its been 6 months. I think im going to check it again to apogee to see if par reading have changed now that its been sitting in system water and see if that changes anything. Out of box it was close enough for what I needed at the time.

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

I did shake the heck out of the bottle but its possible they got a varying level of bacteria. I did only used about twice the recommended minimum dose, not half the bottle so bacterial populations wouldn't or atleast shouldn't be the same day 1 as day 9.

The real test is if each sequential dose of ammonia can be processed faster with significantly less rock but additional surface area. I can always repeat the test for the boulder sized pieces and verify that 14 day initial drop was a fluke.

 

[Dan_P]

I did shake the heck out of the bottle but its possible they got a varying level of bacteria. I did only used about twice the recommended minimum dose, not half the bottle so bacterial populations wouldn't or atleast shouldn't be the same day 1 as day 9.

The real test is if each sequential dose of ammonia can be processed faster with significantly less rock but additional surface area. I can always repeat the test for the boulder sized pieces and verify that 14 day initial drop was a fluke.

Is the thinking here that surface area might be important to how much ammonia can be processed? More surface area, more ammonia oxidation?

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Is the thinking here that surface area might be important to how much ammonia can be processed? More surface area, more ammonia oxidation?

Yeah but its two part. We often instruct new reefers that 2 lbs per gallon is recommended but really its about surface area and sometimes less is more.

 

[Dan_P]

Yeah but its two part. We often instruct new reefers that 2 lbs per gallon is recommended but really its about surface area and sometimes less is more.

Oh, got it. If you have sand you only need 0 lb of rock per gallon, right?

 

[Harold999]

Right on. I remember seeing they had issue with faulty lens throwing off par but corrected and fixed that for folks.
I bought mine used from a reefer that set up lights, cleaned it and boxed it back up. Came with original slide still in package not used. Cant remember exactly but think he said it sat in closet for year or so I got one of the older models.
I did spot check mine to apogee originally and found it within 15 par in most spots until I got to edges of light and started reading to low side but if you tilt it just right you can get it close. I used mine as a Guage and it was acceptable at the time. But having to "tilt" machine just right to get it to read properly on edges may not be acceptable especially when setting up light first time and not knowing what your looking for.
Its been 6 months. I think im going to check it again to apogee to see if par reading have changed now that its been sitting in system water and see if that changes anything. Out of box it was close enough for what I needed at the time.

Please check if it is still pretty similar with the Apogee. If it is, and you're also running the latest firmware, then we know that it's not a firmware bug but a crappy sensor in the recent makes.

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Part 2 comparison!

Small chunked rocks 1 lb per gallon

Date and Time	Ammonia Reading	Event
8/15 9 PM	0.089	Dosed 1.5 ppm
8/17 9:30 PM	0.032	Raised salinity 1.02 to 1.022
8/18 2:05 PM	0	Full processed 65 hours, verified at 8 PM
8/18 9:07 PM	0.068	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
8/20 5:37 AM	0	Fully processed 32.5 hours
8/20 5:37 PM	0.071	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
8/22 4:07 AM	0	Fully processed 34.5 hrs
8/23 9:37 PM	0.079	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
8/24 9:37 PM	0	Fully processed 24 hrs

Large Chunked Rock 2 Lbs per gallon

9/2 7:37 PM	0.072	Dosed 1.5 ppm
9/6 6:37 AM	0	Fully processed 83 hrs
9/6 5:37 PM	0.066	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
9/8 7:37 AM	0	Fully processed 38 hours
9/9 8:17 PM	0.074	Dosed 2 ppm
9/11 6:37 PM	0	Fully processed 46.25 hours
9/11 9:37 PM	0.069	Dosed 2 ppm
9/13 4:37 AM	0	Fully processed 31 hours

The repeat experiment for the larger chunks did indicate a fairly big difference for the first attempt and processed it in 83 hours compared to the 325 that the first slide took. I am guessing it was because I did it too soon after receiving after shipping.. Either way, the 1 lb per gallon (thinking NSA scapes) performed much better than the larger chunks in cycle time. The first experiment took a bit longer to perform so nitrite had more time to process out and bacteria to develop. That rock is now in my GF's mom's tank so no repeating that one again. Questions?

 

[brandon429]

Im so glad you've continued your seneye logs for us to gain patterns from. can you catch me up on these reminders so it all makes good sense to me: those rocks above are they dosed with bottle bac, or feed to gain this nitrification power, or were they merely sat in water alone and took on this ability from the environment + time only?

 

[Dan_P]

Part 2 comparison!

Small chunked rocks 1 lb per gallon

Date and Time	Ammonia Reading	Event
8/15 9 PM	0.089	Dosed 1.5 ppm
8/17 9:30 PM	0.032	Raised salinity 1.02 to 1.022
8/18 2:05 PM	0	Full processed 65 hours, verified at 8 PM
8/18 9:07 PM	0.068	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
8/20 5:37 AM	0	Fully processed 32.5 hours
8/20 5:37 PM	0.071	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
8/22 4:07 AM	0	Fully processed 34.5 hrs
8/23 9:37 PM	0.079	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
8/24 9:37 PM	0	Fully processed 24 hrs

Large Chunked Rock 2 Lbs per gallon

9/2 7:37 PM	0.072	Dosed 1.5 ppm
9/6 6:37 AM	0	Fully processed 83 hrs
9/6 5:37 PM	0.066	Dosed 2 ppm ammonia
9/8 7:37 AM	0	Fully processed 38 hours
9/9 8:17 PM	0.074	Dosed 2 ppm
9/11 6:37 PM	0	Fully processed 46.25 hours
9/11 9:37 PM	0.069	Dosed 2 ppm
9/13 4:37 AM	0	Fully processed 31 hours

The repeat experiment for the larger chunks did indicate a fairly big difference for the first attempt and processed it in 83 hours compared to the 325 that the first slide took. I am guessing it was because I did it too soon after receiving after shipping.. Either way, the 1 lb per gallon (thinking NSA scapes) performed much better than the larger chunks in cycle time. The first experiment took a bit longer to perform so nitrite had more time to process out and bacteria to develop. That rock is now in my GF's mom's tank so no repeating that one again. Questions?

I am running test tube versions of your experiments. Not sure yet but I wonder if PO4 depletion might explain differences you are seeing

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Im so glad you've continued your seneye logs for us to gain patterns from. can you catch me up on these reminders so it all makes good sense to me: those rocks above are they dosed with bottle bac, or feed to gain this nitrification power, or were they merely sat in water alone and took on this ability from the environment + time only?

2X minimum dose of Dr Tims at 1.022 and 78 F. Bottle was in fridge prior and taken out 3 hours prior, shaken and dosed. Rigid air line and powerhead for circulation.

 

[brandon429]

Good. When aquarists set up the new tank like yours but lack the detailed testing ability we have some timing and control limits one can expect now.

 

[MnFish1]

Is the thinking here that surface area might be important to how much ammonia can be processed? More surface area, more ammonia oxidation?

IMHO - the more surface area - the more 'bioload'/ammonia the system can adapt to. I do not think this is infinite. Nor do I think that if you just have a tank - with xxx ammonia concentration - that you can double the ammonia production in 24 hours - and the tank will process it - automatically (though there is clearly enough surface area). Take the example of a 50 gallon tank - with 2 clownfish - stable for 3 months. If you added 30 more in a harem - with 5 anemones - Its my opinion based on reading - that that would be a problem.

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

IMHO - the more surface area - the more 'bioload'/ammonia the system can adapt to. I do not think this is infinite. Nor do I think that if you just have a tank - with xxx ammonia concentration - that you can double the ammonia production in 24 hours - and the tank will process it - automatically (though there is clearly enough surface area). Take the example of a 50 gallon tank - with 2 clownfish - stable for 3 months. If you added 30 more in a harem - with 5 anemones - Its my opinion based on reading - that that would be a problem.

I order some Fritz Ammonium Chloride. I can take a stab at this and setup a doser to simulate a biaload and then increase it. I think I understand where you are going with this but essentially you are saying that bacterial populations and thus ammonia processing should scale with bioload, correct?

 

[MnFish1]

I order some Fritz Ammonium Chloride. I can take a stab at this and setup a doser to simulate a biaload and then increase it. I think I understand where you are going with this but essentially you are saying that bacterial populations and thus ammonia processing should scale with bioload, correct?

Correct - but take into account the fact (as I reported in another thread) - the Seneye - is not great as ammonia concentrations increase far above what would be seen in a 'normal tank' - i.e. as ammonia (total) - increases - the accuracy can decline.

I asked a question - based on another experiment done here on R2R - if you took a tank put 8 PPM ammonia (total) - at pH 8.6 - could that cause abnormal/incorrect readings - here was there response:

"The seneye would read correctly on all parameters except NH3 which could be over-exposed. It would be over the NH3 read limit. A high level of prolonged exposure would make it hard for the slide to work well after. "

My bold in the quote

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Correct - but take into account the fact (as I reported in another thread) - the Seneye - is not great as ammonia concentrations increase far above what would be seen in a 'normal tank' - i.e. as ammonia (total) - increases - the accuracy can decline.

I asked a question - based on another experiment done here on R2R - if you took a tank put 8 PPM ammonia (total) - at pH 8.6 - could that cause abnormal/incorrect readings - here was there response:

"The seneye would read correctly on all parameters except NH3 which could be over-exposed. It would be over the NH3 read limit. A high level of prolonged exposure would make it hard for the slide to work well after. "

My bold in the quote

I have seen this happen on my 2nd slide where I exposed it to 5 ppm and the slide never got back to reading 0. The good thing is that I won't be approaching these levels (I think) because the bioload of 30 clownfish shouldn't be a single 8 ppm spike. I will have to do some math and research on equivalent bioloads but from what I remember reading the 2 ppm mark for cycling was fairly over shooting and used as a worse case scenario.