Post your test data

[Caliban07]

Source: Interpreting Water Analysis Test Results

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]"In fish, ammonia represents the end-product of protein metabolism and what is important is whether it is present in the un-ionized form as free ammonia, [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]NH3, which is toxic to fish (both freshwater and marine) at >0.03 mg/L (ppm),[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]or in the ionized form, NH4+, in which it is innocuous. The relative concentration of each is pH and temperature dependent. The higher the pH, the more of the NH3 will be present. Ammonia can block oxygen transfer in the gills of fish, thereby causing immediate and long term gill damage. Fish suffering from ammonia poisoning will appear sluggish and come to the surface, as if gasping for air. In marine environments, the safe level of NH4+ is between 0.02 and 0.4.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]The USEPA recommends a limit of 0.02 ppm as NH3 in freshwater or marine environments. Total ammonia levels, at this limit, can range from 160 ppm at pH 6 and temperature of 5 degrees C to 0.06 ppm at pH 9 and temperature of 25 degrees C."[/SIZE][/FONT]

This is just a reiteration of what we have been learning about NH3 (free ammonia)
[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]The US Environmental Protection Agency has a limit of .02ppm NH3. But here in aquaria we basically enforce much lower limits...[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]Serious questions, showing how "green" I am about a fish-in cycle, and bad parameters in general.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]a) When fish die to assumed bad ammonia levels, how sure are we that it was the ammonia and not the nitrite?[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]b) Why is such a low level of TAN acceptable for fish-in cycling when free ammonia at that amount is so low? I still believe low ammonia means a cycle that takes FOREVER. Plus the forum is making people WC every day.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]c) How often do we get reports of fish dying where we are 100% certain it is ammonia?[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]d) How many people actually understand the free ammonia part of the API ammonia reading?[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvetica]Did you happen to see the thread in this subforum with the betta in the cup? Where the ammonia was off the charts? I mean the free ammonia in that cup can't have been that bad. Everyone was shocked the fish was alive, but I kind of wasn't because of all we have learned...[/FONT][/SIZE]

No i missed that thread. i think we now realise ammonia toxicity is dependant on variables that if kept under control are safe for our fish.

a) This was where my next trail of thought was heading. How much nitrite is produced from 1 unit of ammonia and what are the toxicity levels of nitrite.
b) I dont believe water changes are necessary. I do one when fish in cycling and thats to add some phosphate as i read about the block a while back. I think you could easily not do any. Especially at lower doses as we now know that alkalinity and dissolved oxygen uses would be even less thus WC would be less important.
c) We dont. Could it be that fish during a cycle are susceptible to low DO as the bacteria are using it to establish a colony. Could this cause gasping at the surface as opposed to ammonia burn? There may be other reasons we havent thought of yet.
d) Not many but i feel that this should be enforced to a newbie. At least that way they can do what they want with the info.

 

[Caliban07]

In response to all posts regarding nitrite toxicity to nitrosomonas, I had read all the articles but there seemed to be a lot of contradiction and references to AMO. I didn't want to post anything in relation because I couldn't make head or tail if it was are wasn't.

In response to nitrobacter preferring higher nitrites and nitrospira preferring lower doses. Does this mean that when fishless cycling with high doses of ammonia we in turn get high nitrites which subsequently breeds nitribacter. When nitrite is consumed to lower concentrations does the colony have to shift in order to colonise nitrospira? Does this mean that doing fishless cycle this way mean we grow 2 strains of nitrite eatin bacteria that compete for space thus slowing the cycle down?

Does this mean that more nitrites and high dosing of ammonia reduce DO to a level that effects the performance of nitrospira. What are the effects of low O2 on nitrospira? I'm sure we read it wasn't good. What are the effects of ph on the nitrite eating bacteria if ph drops during the cycle?

Lots to ponder not enough time lol.

 

[Caliban07]

Oh and I almost forgot to mention. One of those articles claimed bacteria preferred to be in the dark. I'll have to find the one but i think it's from one of the ones you linked.

 

[Caliban07]

http://nsgd.gso.uri.edu/vsgcp/vsgcpc98001/vsgcpc98001_part6.pdf

Page 6

 

[threnjen]

Read all your new posts but have to do some (real life job) work before I can attack this topic and comment.
Good find in that paper about the dark!
Last night I read the Fishless Cycle guide from the forum. Eco (author) definitely knows his stuff, he recommends a lot of stuff we have seen and confirmed (airstone, fish food, dark) so we're not necessarily saying anything new yet about secondary cycle processes. But I still feel like it's valuable work.

 

[Caliban07]

At least we are now operating on the same wavelength as these people. Work sucks! Haha .

 

[threnjen]

I sure like that paper you just posted. I like the way it summarizes a lot our basic research in a relatively basic, easy to read way rather than being overly scientific in its wording.

I still need to reply to your other comments and I will!

I've just had a though - I'm not sure why we promote WC during fishless cycle BECAUSE shouldn't all of the levels even out? What I mean to say, and I'm saying poorly, is if we are training the system to handle 4ppm Ammonia for example. Whatever Nitrite is produced from that IS the amount to handle 4ppm Ammonia. It WILL be off the charts because there is something like... 2.5x nitrite to 1ppm ammonia? But if we then water change down the nitrites, we're telling the nitrite oxidizing bacteria to only grow to handle a smaller % of nitrites. Why don't people just leave it alone?

that paper you posted suggested 15-20ppm as an inhibiting point of ammonia OR nitrite BUT that was like the one claim that had no citation or supporting evidence! So I take it with a grain of salt.
Even so, 4ppm Ammonia would not be 20ppm nitrite.
The water changes during the cycle simply have to be slowing it down by removing the substrate (fancy science terms! substrate = food sourcE)

 

[threnjen]

Cripes, I hope there isn't a test on this lol. Have you seen anything else that might stall a cycle at the nitrite stage (apart from phospate)?

All I'm really seeing is:
phosphates depleted
pH crash
Inhibitory ammonia (nitrobacter can only tolerate .1-1.0 free ammonia, can't remember if nitrospira was studied). This would have to be a pretty darn high amount though, and most people stall when they have low ammonia.

There are like NO STUDIES on inhibitory effects of high nitrite! Which is horribly frustrating since that is a primary thing I want to study
The closest thing is the claim that Nitrospira likes low nitrite but Nitrobacter likes high nitrite. But I don't recall there being numbers to help us quantify "low" and "high". I can only assume that "low" means higher than we are used to only because all of these other concentrations they use in lab work are so far out of our league.
However I am going to check again now that I understand the "mM" to "ppm" conversion. I'm going to look for numbers everywhere and see what I can see.

 

[Caliban07]

I sure like that paper you just posted. I like the way it summarizes a lot our basic research in a relatively basic, easy to read way rather than being overly scientific in its wording.

I still need to reply to your other comments and I will!

I've just had a though - I'm not sure why we promote WC during fishless cycle BECAUSE shouldn't all of the levels even out? What I mean to say, and I'm saying poorly, is if we are training the system to handle 4ppm Ammonia for example. Whatever Nitrite is produced from that IS the amount to handle 4ppm Ammonia. It WILL be off the charts because there is something like... 2.5x nitrite to 1ppm ammonia? But if we then water change down the nitrites, we're telling the nitrite oxidizing bacteria to only grow to handle a smaller % of nitrites. Why don't people just leave it alone?

that paper you posted suggested 15-20ppm as an inhibiting point of ammonia OR nitrite BUT that was like the one claim that had no citation or supporting evidence! So I take it with a grain of salt.
Even so, 4ppm Ammonia would not be 20ppm nitrite.
The water changes during the cycle simply have to be slowing it down by removing the substrate (fancy science terms! substrate = food sourcE)

I agree completely. Obviously it's even more important not to change water during the tests. Add a pinch of fish food for phosphates and increase buffering capacity. It maybe be a good idea to see if there is a difference when not adding buffers or fish food.

 

[threnjen]

My thinking is that it doesnt matter how long a fish in cycle takes. As long as its carried out sensibly you should be able to run a cycle right through to the end without worrying about ammonia. Ive cycled a few tanks this way now and not once did ammonia go above 0.25 TAN.

Can I assume though it gets tougher at the nitrite stage?

Now does it matter if the target is 4ppm or 1ppm? what i am starting to think is that if to tanks were set up under the same parameters, temp Ph etc that the lower does would be slightly more efficent. What we are trying to do is establish if high levels of X is inhabitory to bacteria colonies. The lower dose in my opinion should be less likely. However, as we know know, our dosings are childs play lol. even so, i would be inclined to think lower is better.

I think advantages of a lower dose cycle completing initially would be:
a) plenty of physical space for colonies to grow (I haven't seen studies on the bacteria having actual physical space problems)
b) no inhibitory levels of anything

I personally am expecting, in practice, for it to take longer depending on your end goal (4ppm? less?) because once you cycle it to that small initial level, then you have to grow all new bacteria for the next level

 

[Caliban07]

Can I assume though it gets tougher at the nitrite stage?


I think advantages of a lower dose cycle completing initially would be:
a) plenty of physical space for colonies to grow (I haven't seen studies on the bacteria having actual physical space problems)
b) no inhibitory levels of anything

I personally am expecting, in practice, for it to take longer depending on your end goal (4ppm? less?) because once you cycle it to that small initial level, then you have to grow all new bacteria for the next level

Yes. That was the initial thought. Let's still go with that a target of 4ppm starting with lower dosing. I think it might come down to bacteria efficiency at doing their job rather than numbers. Therefore a dosing say from 1ppm straight to 2ppm may not see much difference in time although bacteria would grow. 4ppm off the bat could cause inhibitory problems that can slow the cycle. I hope we are both right and it's conditions that matter and not dosing.

 

[threnjen]

a) This was where my next trail of thought was heading. How much nitrite is produced from 1 unit of ammonia and what are the toxicity levels of nitrite.

1 ppm ammonia = 1 ppm nitrite = 1 ppm nitrate?
This person isn't a chemist, just did napkin math, and thinks 1ppm ammonia converts to 2.7ppm nitrite.
Weirdly I am having trouble finding other statements on the web about this. I must be asking the wrong questions...

b) I dont believe water changes are necessary. I do one when fish in cycling and thats to add some phosphate as i read about the block a while back. I think you could easily not do any. Especially at lower doses as we now know that alkalinity and dissolved oxygen uses would be even less thus WC would be less important.

We do seem to know better now about the impact of the TAN in a fish-in cycle. I would still do fishless for myself but I have lost a lot of reservations about fish-in due to what we have learned.

c) We dont. Could it be that fish during a cycle are susceptible to low DO as the bacteria are using it to establish a colony. Could this cause gasping at the surface as opposed to ammonia burn? There may be other reasons we havent thought of yet.

I think that is an excellent hypothesis.

d) Not many but i feel that this should be enforced to a newbie. At least that way they can do what they want with the info.

So many of them are so confused by the whole process. I WANT to inform the whole world but apparently I don't trust the whole world to grasp it. Like one of the people you replied to yesterday it was obvious it just went right over his head. I wish I could better guage the ability of a newbie to grasp the more complicated stuff. Like you said it would make their lives easier if they knew...

 

[threnjen]

I agree completely. Obviously it's even more important not to change water during the tests. Add a pinch of fish food for phosphates and increase buffering capacity. It maybe be a good idea to see if there is a difference when not adding buffers or fish food.

Except in very low doses of ammonia I think the cycle is bound to pH crash if we resolve not to add anything.
As a note I haven't added any fish food on my bucket cycle. It *may* actually be stalled. If it is in fact stalled I can and will blame the phosphorus.

 

[Caliban07]

Except in very low doses of ammonia I think the cycle is bound to pH crash if we resolve not to add anything.
As a note I haven't added any fish food on my bucket cycle. It *may* actually be stalled. If it is in fact stalled I can and will blame the phosphorus.

Hmmm would low or higher doses be more susceptible. More ammonia = more energy usege= more use of alkalinity and creation of pH lowering acids?

 

[Caliban07]

1 ppm ammonia = 1 ppm nitrite = 1 ppm nitrate?
This person isn't a chemist, just did napkin math, and thinks 1ppm ammonia converts to 2.7ppm nitrite.
Weirdly I am having trouble finding other statements on the web about this. I must be asking the wrong questions...


We do seem to know better now about the impact of the TAN in a fish-in cycle. I would still do fishless for myself but I have lost a lot of reservations about fish-in due to what we have learned.


I think that is an excellent hypothesis.


So many of them are so confused by the whole process. I WANT to inform the whole world but apparently I don't trust the whole world to grasp it. Like one of the people you replied to yesterday it was obvious it just went right over his head. I wish I could better guage the ability of a newbie to grasp the more complicated stuff. Like you said it would make their lives easier if they knew...

This is interesting. I think what we need to know is how LESS toxic is nitrite to ammonia? Remember 1ppm is still a lot less free ammonia depending on pH. Does this bare any resemblance with nitrite? Is nitrite being produced from ammonium or free ammonia?

 

[threnjen]

Hmmm would low or higher doses be more susceptible. More ammonia = more energy usege= more use of alkalinity and creation of pH lowering acids?

High doses what be susceptible. I think I just left out a comma so my sentence was unclear.
I don't think it would pH crash in low doses, like the .25 starting point.

 

[threnjen]

This is interesting. I think what we need to know is how LESS toxic is nitrite to ammonia? Remember 1ppm is still a lot less free ammonia depending on pH. Does this bare any resemblance with nitrite? Is nitrite being produced from ammonium or free ammonia?

Nitrite is produced by both, those bacteria will eat either.

So, tidbit - fish-in cycling BEST performed at the lowest pH that still allows nitrification without inhibition. 6.5. Now let's try telling THAT to a newbie (I don't even know how to lower pH!). After all that has the lowest possible free ammonia level!

As far as I know about Nitrite I think it's more toxic than ammonia. I am sure I have seen something somewhere. Will look it up.

 

[threnjen]

Source: http://vri.cz/docs/vetmed/50-11-461.pdf

The presence of sublethal concentrations of noxious chemicals in freshwater environments can promote the emergence and development of infectious diseases in fish (Carballo and Munoz, 1991;Carballo et al., 1995). Rainbow trout exposed for 24 hours to 0.24 mg/l NO2 (corresponding to 50% of lethal concentration) were challenged after toxin exposure with Saprolegnia parasitica causing mycotic dermal infection. The acute stress response provoked by the toxin exposure accounts for the main contribution to the increase in saprolegniosis susceptibility, representing approximately a 100% increase in the percentage of infected fish when compared with the control group

Bromide, which is chemically similar to chloride, was studied by Eddy et al. (1983), who found that 1mM of sodium bromide (80 mg/l) was enough to offset the presence of 0.7mM nitrite (32 mg/l nitrite-N) almost completely for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in fresh water.


Calcium chloride was more effective than sodium chloride at reducing nitrite toxicity in striped bass (Morone saxatilis) (Mazik et al., 1991) or shortnose sturgeon fingerlings (Acipenser brevirostrum)(Fontenot and Isely, 1999). On the other hand, Bowser et al. (1983) found that sodium chloride and calcium chloride provided equivalent protection against nitrite toxicity for channel catfish, suggesting that the identity of the metal cation was of small importance.
Krous et al. (1982) pointed out that high concentrations of calcium generally reduced the loss of chloride through the gills. This in turn diminished the requirement for nitrite uptake. Thus there are theoretical reasons to expect that calcium ions will reduce toxicity although experimental work that has been done so far proves that the effect is a weak one.

Calcium chloride like this?? http://www.amazon.com/Calcium-Chlor...d=1388740861&sr=8-1&keywords=calcium+chloride
Sodium Bromide: http://www.amazon.com/Leisure-BE1-S...qid=1388740929&sr=8-1&keywords=sodium+bromide

 

[threnjen]

Source: Nitrite Toxicity - WikiVet

"Nitrite is much less toxic when chloride is present, possibly because chloride inhibits nitrate absorption across the gills.
Sodium chloride is the most available and cheapest source of chloride."

"Species susceptibility to nitrate is variable and is linked to chloride uptake by the gills. Nitrite competes for chloride absorption, therefore fish with a high chloride uptake such as the rainbow trout, the perch, the pike and the catfish are more susceptible to nitrite. In contrast, the largemouth and smallmouth bass, bluegill and green sunfish are resistant to high concentrations of nitrite."

 

[threnjen]

Source: http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/limnology/pubs/pdfs/Pub079.pdf
The addition of 1 mg/L chloride increased the increases the 96 LC-50 [concentration lethal to half the test subjects in 96 hours] level by .29 to 2.0mg/l, depending on the species.