But if someone produces factual evidence that something happens when something is done, opinions and theories don't come into it, do they?
Yes, the nitrifying bacteria need dissolved CO2. The form that <"Total Inorganic Carbon (TIC)"> takes is dependent upon pH and the total amount of TIC is dependent upon atmospheric CO2 levels.Thanks for that. AFAIK, room air contains carbon in the form of CO2, so that must be why cycling a sponge filter with an air pump in a bucket with RO water. commercial aquarium remineraliser, household ammonia, and a bacterial starter works well for me.
Hi all,Yes, the nitrifying bacteria need dissolved CO2. The form that <"Total Inorganic Carbon (TIC)"> takes is dependent upon pH and the total amount of TIC is dependent upon atmospheric CO2 levels.
Because nitrification is an acidifying process (you've liberated three H+ ions and combined three oxygen atoms) you can potentially, convert all the TIC to CO2, which reduces pH and can limit nitrification, because the CO2 will only be replenished by diffusion from the atmosphere. If you have a reserve of carbonates, these buffer the pH fall and mean that a continual stream of CO2 is available for nitrification. As H+ ions are liberated pH doesn't fall because the CO3-- buffer is converted to HCO3- and those bicarbonate ions converted to CO2. You only run out of CO2 when the carbonate buffering is exhausted.
<"Ammonia Oxidising Archaea (AOA)"> need less oxygen for nitrification, I don't know how this effects their carbon requirement, but lowers it would be my guess. They certainly don't have the same requirement for high carbonate hardness that Ammonia Oxidising Bacteria (AOB) have.
Hüpeden, J. et al (2020) <"Taxonomic and functional profiling of nitrifying biofilms in freshwater, brackish and marine RAS biofilters"> Aquacultural Engineering 90.
Urakawa, H. & Sipos, A. (2020)<"Application of the consortia of nitrifying archaea and bacteria for fish transportation may be beneficial for fish trading and aquaculture"> Aquaculture Research 51:8
The thousands of people that had great success were doing it wrong, just ask those kids you mentioned.
Things tend to go in and out of fashion, my guess would be that there are still quite a few older aquarists using UGF, and at some point they will have limited renaissance. I think people like canister filters for <"their look">, because they are quiet, because maintenance is easy etc., but not necessarily because they are <"always the best choice">.I started keeping fish in the days of undergravel filters, when the substrate was the biological filter. I left the hobby for a time, and came back to find undergravel filters not only impossible to find, but an actual subject of mockery (despite how well they worked for me in the past).
I think a lot of us <"have been there">.You were supposed to fishless cycle your filter with Tetra Safe Start and ammonia, in exactly the same way, keep the same spreadsheet of tank parameters, etc. or you were being cruel to your livestock, and to question this was treated as heresy.
Same for me, but I'd admit that I'm not an entirely objective observer. I started from the premise that:Then I grew my own jungle tank and could see right in front of me that the cycled filter was one component in a system that is more complex than any of those young folk realise.
The same here as well. Even back then there was no end to the BS about how plants wouldn't grow very well if you used an under-gravel filter since it continually disturbed the roots, or some such nonsense.I started keeping fish in the days of undergravel filters, when the substrate was the biological filter.
To add to the plants cycling tanks argument, I cycled my tank earlier this year in 1 week just with Amazonia Powder / Amazonia II and heavy planting. They were a bunch of emersed plants from a grower here in Australia.
I was referencing the substrate as an ammonia source not bacteria. I also used power sand which supposedly has bacteria added but more likely the plants I would say.IMO the cycling process will different for all substrates as each substrate will bring a different array of bacteria and microorganisms to the tank, even inert substrates will have bacteria on them, how clean are our hands when scaping the tank will have an effect. To get definitive results/conclusions from living organisms or ecosystems (which includes a 5kg bag of substrate in a plastic bag) is hard, and any conclusions are subjective.
PM me if you want full-text.but could only get access to the 'abstracts' of the papers without paying,
As a PhD student yesHi all, PM me if you want full-text.
There is a lot of argument about open source science, some scientists will /journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish']only publish[/URL]"> in open source journals, but a whole industry is based on the /www.aje.com/en/arc/understanding-submission-and-publication-fees/']"pay to publish", "pay to read" model[/URL]">.
Scientists are trapped really, they have to keep publishing to remain in any form of employment, and they have to publish in /www.annualreviews.org/about/impact-factors']prestigious journals[/URL]"> to rise up the academic treadmill. If they don't "perform" they are sacked. Academia is a pretty ruthless place these days, it really is a buyers market, with a huge "over-supply" of scientists.
I don't know, but I don't think Purigen will make any difference to the Bacteria/Archaea, (or ammonia) you add.I am wondering if they are compatible with Purigen?
They can, but it is down to the size of colloid or molecule. Have a look at @Craig Matthews post in <"FeEDDHA">, and Seachem's response..my question because Purigen does not play well with some aquarium additives, they can reduce the effectiveness of Purigen.
Is there a water quality reason for wanting to try "One and Only"? It would probably only make a positive difference if you felt that <"biological nitrification had been compromised">.All of my tanks are heavily planted and cycled
Hi all,They can, but it is down to the size of colloid or molecule. Have a look at @Craig Matthews post in <"FeEDDHA">, and Seachem's response..
Is there a water quality reason for wanting to try "One and Only"? It would probably only make a positive difference if you felt that <"biological nitrification had been compromised">.
Because your tanks are established, and heavily planted, the microbial assemblage you have in the filter (and substrate) is likely to be one that has developed under <"low ammonia loading">, which would reduce any advantage of "One and Only" may have.
If you had a high ammonia situation without an inoculum of suitable microbes (basically a non-planted, non-cycled tank) then it would be worth trying, although my guess would be that plants and time are still a better option .