Greenmaster
New member
Skimmers remove most proteins and fats/oils. That is one of the reasons I plan on not having one in my system.
How I got my "DEAD" tank to cycle in 1 week
- Thread starter Greenmaster
- Start date
HighlandReefer
Team RC
I would beg to differ with you according to the research available. Skimmers will remove suspended debris including the organic debris, but will not remove dissolved organics down at the molecule sizes. Bacterial break down of the dissolved organic portion of our tank water is a very important factor in addition to running GAC when it comes to removing all these dissolved organics formed once we add organisms. This is the part of a reef tank cycle I feel you fail to grasp. 
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature#idc-container
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature#idc-container
Greenmaster
New member
You make quite a factual statement... I didn't read anywhere that skimmers wont remove dissolved organics in that study... It was very informative. But I believe that the study said, "In total, the 8.49 gm of total solids removed during the week of skimming contain approximately 318 mg of water-soluble organics."I would beg to differ with you according to the research available. Skimmers will remove suspended debris including the organic debris, but will not remove dissolved organics down at the molecule sizes. Bacterial break down of the dissolved organic portion of our tank water is a very important factor in addition to running GAC when it comes to removing all these dissolved organics formed once we add organisms. This is the part of a reef tank cycle I feel you fail to grasp.
Feature Article: Elemental Analysis of Skimmate: What Does a Protein Skimmer Actually Remove from Aquarium Water?
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/2/aafeature#idc-container
I do not believe that not having the organisms that consume some of the dissolved organics is going to hurt the fish. I believe that they will come in time and that as long as the toxins in the tank are taken care of then the cycle is complete. Toxins being NH3, NO2, NO3, and possibly PO4.
I believe that your and my definition of cycle are different. I believe that for the aquarium terms that most people use, especially in the phrase "you need to cycle your tank before you can add fish" just means that the tank can manage the toxins, NH3, NO2 and some people also say NO3 and PO4 although a lot of people prefer to do water changes in order to control the NO3/PO4 because of the need of a carbon source. In the manner that you are using the word cycle I would use mature or maturation. The balancing of organic elements in the system to make for a stable system. It is one of the reasons you should wait to get certain marine species like an anemone. Some people never get to a balanced state in their aquarium. Often it is because they are adding or removing something. Like adding fish, changing the skimmer, changing food or feeding schedules, adding reactors, lights/ballast/drivers getting old, the salt that you get is changed/modified by the manufacturer without notice, the list goes on, basically anything we add or remove from a tank. Often people change things to "fix" a problem... the problem resulted from an imbalance and some times won't correct it's self but often it will, and the "fix" that was implemented will have it's own repercussions, often resulting in another "fix". Some of these "fixes" may be needed, but to what extent is arguable and there is no sure answer. From what I have seen and read, I believe that an aquarium will take between 6 months to 2 years to balance out (Mature), and if you change too many things then the balance (Maturation) may never be achieved.
One question for anyone out there, if anyone knows... at what level of PO4 do fish start to show signs of stress?
Greenmaster
New member
I didn't think so... but any time I make the statement I then have to find proof...
lisafoster
so much to learn
"Some people never get to a balanced state in their aquarium. Often it is because they are adding or removing something. Like adding fish, changing the skimmer, changing food or feeding schedules, adding reactors, lights/ballast/drivers getting old, the salt that you get is changed/modified by the manufacturer without notice, the list goes on, basically anything we add or remove from a tank. Often people change things to "fix" a problem... the problem resulted from an imbalance and some times won't correct it's self but often it will, and the "fix" that was implemented will have it's own repercussions, often resulting in another "fix". Some of these "fixes" may be needed, but to what extent is arguable and there is no sure answer. From what I have seen and read, I believe that an aquarium will take between 6 months to 2 years to balance out (Mature), and if you change too many things then the balance (Maturation) may never be achieved."
This is a very good point.
This is a very good point.
HighlandReefer
Team RC
This is a statement that Dr. Ken Feldman made here on RC in a post regarding his conclusions of his research:
Elemental Analysis of Skimmate by Dr. Ken Feldman
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1799719&page=2
"Hi All
Thanks for the interest. I realize that I have a long way to go in order to acquire enough data to provide definitive descriptions of the processes in question (skimming, GAC, skimmate constitution, etc.). These studies that I've published are really just preliminary attempts to develop/describe methodology that will permit further data collection (hopefully by others like skimmer manufacturers) and refinement of our understanding. Furthermore, I have been aided in my understanding and in my experimental direction by many aquarists; I am very thankful to Randy H-F, Boomer, Sanjay Joshi and Craig Bingman for their insights, guidance and reality checks on some of my musings and data interpretation. Of course, all errors are strictly my own.
Now, to address some specific concerns:
1) GAC removal of TOC. Yes, as Boomer indicated, my students have made many runs in which we've measured both the rate constant and the extent of TOC removal from authentic aquarium water using ROX GAC or HC2 GAC. We've even looked at TOC removal in an operating reef tank, not just a pulled water sample. Also, we've examined (a) the relationship between volumetric flow rate (gph) and rate constant for TOC removal by GAC, and (b) the question of whether, for a given amount of GAC and a given flow rate, is it better (better = faster rate constant for TOC removal) to have a tall skinny GAC column or a short fat GAC column? [Reefers: What would you predict – short fat or tall skinny?] We haven't written these studies up for publication because we haven't yet been able devise an experimental procedure that allows us to calculate/measure the maximum amount of TOC that a given amount of GAC can absorb. I prefer not to publish our results/data in an RC thread, but I probably will include some of our GAC results in my Orlando MACNA2010 talk even if we don't figure out the binding capacity by that time. Once we can figure that out, we hope to use that info to arrive at an answer to the question, "When should I change my GAC?"
2) from Harper: "Or if air skimming just simply isn't effective for removing dissolved organics no matter what skimmer design."
This statement is essentially the conclusion that I reached from our skimmer studies. Bubbles are a rather poor medium (compared to GAC, for example) for removing organics, but they are cheap! Skimming does remove some organics, but leaves a majority untouched. That scenario isn't necessarily bad; some TOC/DOC is essential to keep the food web of the tank fueled – remember, TOC is called "the soil of the sea" for a reason.
3) From Luther1200: "Does anybody else think this study would have been a lot better if he took samples of the tank water to compare to what was in the skimmate? I just don't understand how he could make the statement toward the end that the skimmer didn't remove that much of the TOC if he never even took a sample from the tank to see what it was."
We looked extensively at this question. Please see the earlier AA articles (Jan 2009 and Jan 2010). The 20 – 35% TOC removal amount was a measured quantity.
3) from Randy H-F: "Would also be interesting to see if the data varies in organic carbon dosed tanks."
I would love to be able to examine the TOC and bacteria (we now are counting bacteria in the water column under different husbandry conditions) numbers in tanks using a variety of husbandry techniques (carbon dosing, Zeovit, no skimmer/GAC, etc). Perhaps in the future….
4) from Sowellj: "In other words, how did they discriminate selective removal of compounds versus concentration by evaporation. If they looked at ratios in both skimmate and saltwater that would help tease that out."
Unfortunately, we don't have the equipment or expertise to identify the chemical structure of organic materials, either in the tank water or in the skimmate. That's a problem at the cutting edge of analytical chemistry. If you are curious about the state-of-the-art in this field, check out the Hatcher refs discussed in the Intro to the AA article.
Ken"
Elemental Analysis of Skimmate by Dr. Ken Feldman
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1799719&page=2
"Hi All
Thanks for the interest. I realize that I have a long way to go in order to acquire enough data to provide definitive descriptions of the processes in question (skimming, GAC, skimmate constitution, etc.). These studies that I've published are really just preliminary attempts to develop/describe methodology that will permit further data collection (hopefully by others like skimmer manufacturers) and refinement of our understanding. Furthermore, I have been aided in my understanding and in my experimental direction by many aquarists; I am very thankful to Randy H-F, Boomer, Sanjay Joshi and Craig Bingman for their insights, guidance and reality checks on some of my musings and data interpretation. Of course, all errors are strictly my own.
Now, to address some specific concerns:
1) GAC removal of TOC. Yes, as Boomer indicated, my students have made many runs in which we've measured both the rate constant and the extent of TOC removal from authentic aquarium water using ROX GAC or HC2 GAC. We've even looked at TOC removal in an operating reef tank, not just a pulled water sample. Also, we've examined (a) the relationship between volumetric flow rate (gph) and rate constant for TOC removal by GAC, and (b) the question of whether, for a given amount of GAC and a given flow rate, is it better (better = faster rate constant for TOC removal) to have a tall skinny GAC column or a short fat GAC column? [Reefers: What would you predict – short fat or tall skinny?] We haven't written these studies up for publication because we haven't yet been able devise an experimental procedure that allows us to calculate/measure the maximum amount of TOC that a given amount of GAC can absorb. I prefer not to publish our results/data in an RC thread, but I probably will include some of our GAC results in my Orlando MACNA2010 talk even if we don't figure out the binding capacity by that time. Once we can figure that out, we hope to use that info to arrive at an answer to the question, "When should I change my GAC?"
2) from Harper: "Or if air skimming just simply isn't effective for removing dissolved organics no matter what skimmer design."
This statement is essentially the conclusion that I reached from our skimmer studies. Bubbles are a rather poor medium (compared to GAC, for example) for removing organics, but they are cheap! Skimming does remove some organics, but leaves a majority untouched. That scenario isn't necessarily bad; some TOC/DOC is essential to keep the food web of the tank fueled – remember, TOC is called "the soil of the sea" for a reason.
3) From Luther1200: "Does anybody else think this study would have been a lot better if he took samples of the tank water to compare to what was in the skimmate? I just don't understand how he could make the statement toward the end that the skimmer didn't remove that much of the TOC if he never even took a sample from the tank to see what it was."
We looked extensively at this question. Please see the earlier AA articles (Jan 2009 and Jan 2010). The 20 – 35% TOC removal amount was a measured quantity.
3) from Randy H-F: "Would also be interesting to see if the data varies in organic carbon dosed tanks."
I would love to be able to examine the TOC and bacteria (we now are counting bacteria in the water column under different husbandry conditions) numbers in tanks using a variety of husbandry techniques (carbon dosing, Zeovit, no skimmer/GAC, etc). Perhaps in the future….
4) from Sowellj: "In other words, how did they discriminate selective removal of compounds versus concentration by evaporation. If they looked at ratios in both skimmate and saltwater that would help tease that out."
Unfortunately, we don't have the equipment or expertise to identify the chemical structure of organic materials, either in the tank water or in the skimmate. That's a problem at the cutting edge of analytical chemistry. If you are curious about the state-of-the-art in this field, check out the Hatcher refs discussed in the Intro to the AA article.
Ken"
Last edited:
HighlandReefer
Team RC
FWIW, Greenmaster, I do agree with you, in that your tank is ready for fish. Your tests at least to me demonstrate that a few fish could be added. It's is just that I don't believe that adding 30 fish or so at one time, is where there is a lot of questions as to whether your system can handle this. Perhaps it could. Personally I would add them slower to allow time for new bacterial populations to develop, once fish are added, that will break down the dissolved organics added from fish food & fish excrement.
Last edited:
HighlandReefer
Team RC
I agree with Jon that I have seen no evidence that higher phosphate or nitrate levels cause problems for fish.
If your system does allow nitrate & phosphate to build-up to higher levels which is very conducive to pest infestation, then any pest algae, diatoms, or cyano introduced can become a problem and take considerable time to eradicate. It will also take more effort and time to reduce their levels if they climb significantly.
Greenmaster
New member
I agree with Jon that I have seen no evidence that higher phosphate or nitrate levels cause problems for fish.
If your system does allow nitrate & phosphate to build-up to higher levels which is very conducive to pest infestation, then any pest algae, diatoms, or cyano introduced can become a problem and take considerable time to eradicate. It will also take more effort and time to reduce their levels if they climb significantly.
I thought I read somewhere that Nitrates at or above 100 can start to cause stress and health issues for fish... I'm not sure though. Although with my tank it can remove the nitrates no problem as long as I dose carbon (ethanol).
HighlandReefer
Team RC
I have read articles that state there is some evidence that higher levels of nitrate can cause problems for fish as well, but can't remember where I read that. Surely high enough levels of anything can cause problems.
Personally, I think you have devoted quite a bit of time to present your method for cycling a tank and that is to be commended.
Getting a tank to cycle to the point that your's has within around a week is good. I have mentioned the use of carbon sources before for cycling a tank & have been shot down myself. :lol:
The use of bacterial supplements for starting a tank cycle, has been prove to reduce the cycle time by University research completed for the manufacturer. I would like to see more research completed, which is not paid for by the manufacturer and would like to see research completed on already properly running tanks. Your project does seem to agree with the finding presented by the University, where cycling time was reduced by 1/2 to 1/3 the normal time, IIRC. IMHO, adding a carbon source with a bacterial supplement could easily further decrease the cycling time which would closer match your results.
Personally, I think you have devoted quite a bit of time to present your method for cycling a tank and that is to be commended.
Getting a tank to cycle to the point that your's has within around a week is good. I have mentioned the use of carbon sources before for cycling a tank & have been shot down myself. :lol:
The use of bacterial supplements for starting a tank cycle, has been prove to reduce the cycle time by University research completed for the manufacturer. I would like to see more research completed, which is not paid for by the manufacturer and would like to see research completed on already properly running tanks. Your project does seem to agree with the finding presented by the University, where cycling time was reduced by 1/2 to 1/3 the normal time, IIRC. IMHO, adding a carbon source with a bacterial supplement could easily further decrease the cycling time which would closer match your results.
Last edited:
HighlandReefer
Team RC
Nitrate toxicity in Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baeri) H.J. Hamlin,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...2aa82ac3bd5423d5ac8ec07f1e72578c&searchtype=a
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, United States
Received 23 June 2005; revised 17 August 2005; accepted 19 August 2005. Available online 14 October 2005.
Abstract
Excess nitrate in aquaculture has traditionally been reduced by water exchange. Current trends in environmental regulation, however, are limiting the amount of water which may be consumed or discharged, reducing the ability to use large influxes of water to remediate excess nitrate. This will create significant challenges for the aquaculture community, as the etiology, effects and tolerable thresholds of nitrate are relatively unknown in fishes as compared to ammonia and nitrite. Three 96-h LC50 tests were conducted using 6.9 ± 0.31 g, 66.9 ± 3.4 g, and 673.8 ± 18.6 g Acipenser baeri, to determine baseline information regarding the sensitivity of this species to elevated nitrate as compared to other species, and determine if sensitivities are mediated by size. The 96-h LC50 results for nitrate-N for 6.9 ± 0.31 g, 66.9 ± 3.4 g and 673.8 ± 18.6 g fish were 1028 mg/l, 601 mg/l and 397 mg/l, respectively, indicating an increased susceptibility to nitrate with increasing size. Predictions of susceptibilities for larger animals based on linear extrapolation of the current data is also discussed. These findings reveal that nitrate may be a considerable concern for Siberian sturgeon reared in recirculating systems with limited water exchange.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since these numbers represent the 96-h LC50 (Lethal Concentration to kill 50% of the tested population within 96 hours), I might assume the safe level could be significantly lower.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...2aa82ac3bd5423d5ac8ec07f1e72578c&searchtype=a
Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Florida, 7922 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, United States
Received 23 June 2005; revised 17 August 2005; accepted 19 August 2005. Available online 14 October 2005.
Abstract
Excess nitrate in aquaculture has traditionally been reduced by water exchange. Current trends in environmental regulation, however, are limiting the amount of water which may be consumed or discharged, reducing the ability to use large influxes of water to remediate excess nitrate. This will create significant challenges for the aquaculture community, as the etiology, effects and tolerable thresholds of nitrate are relatively unknown in fishes as compared to ammonia and nitrite. Three 96-h LC50 tests were conducted using 6.9 ± 0.31 g, 66.9 ± 3.4 g, and 673.8 ± 18.6 g Acipenser baeri, to determine baseline information regarding the sensitivity of this species to elevated nitrate as compared to other species, and determine if sensitivities are mediated by size. The 96-h LC50 results for nitrate-N for 6.9 ± 0.31 g, 66.9 ± 3.4 g and 673.8 ± 18.6 g fish were 1028 mg/l, 601 mg/l and 397 mg/l, respectively, indicating an increased susceptibility to nitrate with increasing size. Predictions of susceptibilities for larger animals based on linear extrapolation of the current data is also discussed. These findings reveal that nitrate may be a considerable concern for Siberian sturgeon reared in recirculating systems with limited water exchange.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since these numbers represent the 96-h LC50 (Lethal Concentration to kill 50% of the tested population within 96 hours), I might assume the safe level could be significantly lower.
Last edited:
HighlandReefer
Team RC
Your welcome Jon. It does seem that this data is in line with your recommendations. We do need more reseach on nitrate levels in reef tanks especially for all the different fish & other animals we keep.
Greenmaster
New member
Do you have any idea how much nitrogen is in typical fish foods?
The only data I've seen gives the protein content, but not nitrogen. Here's one article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010720071031/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/data/foods.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20010720071031/http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/data/foods.asp
So... what ended up happening with this? I read through most of this (skimmed the last 2 pages though) and didn't see anything about Greenmaster's test of adding AM after the cycle. Does it process? Have you added fish already?
Reason I ask is I have a 90 that I filled over the weekend with 70 lbs or so of dead rock (eco-rock from BRS), 80 lbs of dead substrate (seaflor special grade), RO/DI water and salt. Have a few fish sitting in a 29 QT that's stable chem-wise and wondering if I should dose AM and bacteria for fishless cycle. Just starting research on that while my ballasts/Apex come in the mail.
Reason I ask is I have a 90 that I filled over the weekend with 70 lbs or so of dead rock (eco-rock from BRS), 80 lbs of dead substrate (seaflor special grade), RO/DI water and salt. Have a few fish sitting in a 29 QT that's stable chem-wise and wondering if I should dose AM and bacteria for fishless cycle. Just starting research on that while my ballasts/Apex come in the mail.
Greenmaster
New member
I would dose AM and bacteria. You need to calculate how much ammonia will make 2-4 ppm then add it. Once it gets to zero you need to add it again, until it can go to ammonia 0 nitrite 0 in 24 hours with a starting minimum of 2 ppm.
My results may not match yours as I have some special bacteria colonization areas I have developed.
As far as the experiment goes, I have sterilized my tank and am waiting for my apex and the time to redo the test. I will then do a complete test and add fish. (don't hold your breath, my wife wants me to get a different tank up and running first so until then this tank stays dry.)
My results may not match yours as I have some special bacteria colonization areas I have developed.
As far as the experiment goes, I have sterilized my tank and am waiting for my apex and the time to redo the test. I will then do a complete test and add fish. (don't hold your breath, my wife wants me to get a different tank up and running first so until then this tank stays dry.)
Mikey122687
New member
Not sure if this gonna help or anything but when i started my 80G tank. I bought about 100lbs of live rocks. Let it sit in my tank for a week, went out and bought a blue tang, copper band B/F, and yellow tang. I still have it right now and its been about 1.5 years ago.
