Pickled bacteria?

[wade1]

isn't a 100ppm basically fish swimming in urine?

Not even remotely close. Fish excrete ammonia as a byproduct of metabolism. Mammals secrete urea (nothing like ammonia/nitrite/nitrate) only (you would be screaming like a little girl in a horror movie if you excreted ammonia .

 

[Anonymous]

Here's my question: If marine fish do so well at high levels of nitrite, why don't we just cycle our tanks with whatever fish we happen to like at the old LFS?

Why don't we just sell the newbies an emperor angel or two and let em cycle away??

It's nice to know such studies exist, but it's rather poor husbandry (not to mention irresponsible fishkeeping) to go around telling people "hey, your nitrItes are only at 80ppm? and nitrates at 100ppm? No biggie! They can survive it!"

Wtf?

Here's what I prefer: No nitrites, no ammonia, and no nitrate. That is what a well cared-for tank should test at. Anything else needs to be dealt with.

As far as I am concerned, too many products exist to encourage poor husbandry. Nitrate Remover?? Here's a better idea: Don't overstock, don't overfeed, and do more waterchanges. Or hell, even listen to beaslbob and run some chaeto in your refugium. ANYTHING is better than having such high levels.

Seriously, people. Come ON.

 

[Phil D]

You are absolutely 100% right, and any deviation from that is "lunacy"
Ammonia and nitrites should be "illegal", and some nitrates just temporarely tolerated only and to be fixed asap.

 

[Anonymous]

I like the whole "illegal" idea

 

[wade1]

You are forgetting just how toxic ammonia is.... at the pH's in our tanks, it has a high fraction that is toxic. That will nuke your fish in a heartbeat.

 

[Anonymous]

You are forgetting just how toxic ammonia is.... at the pH's in our tanks, it has a high fraction that is toxic. That will nuke your fish in a heartbeat.

Nope, not forgetting. Just going along with the whole "nitrItes are not toxic" routine. I have a hell of a lot of commercial experience with high levels of both ammonia AND nitrite, and I can tell you that these levels WILL kill fish, I don't care who "studied" what..

No, not my personal tanks

 

[sediener]

Could it have something to do with acclimation to hgher nitrite levels? Slowly raising the levels in a tank vs. dropping a fish fresh off the boat into the high levels... I don't know how the studies were done but it could be slight misinformation if the nitrite levels were artifically ramped up slowly enough to let the fish acclimate.

- steve

 

[Jollyblue]

Wow, interesting thread..

Anyway, here's the latest on the tank. I should mention that after dropping the fish etc in, I did dose amquel for a couple of days just to be sure, in spite of the fact that ammonia was reading 0ppm. I also put a handful of caulerpa in. Tank has 30watts floro+40wattsCF

My ammonia test kit is new. Aquarium Systems (not the best..). I did not test nitrite because .3ppm ammonia=.3ppm nitrite (at worst), which I deemed aceptable. I don't know if amquel interferes with the test kit, nor what it's latency might be - perhaps it's just binding everything...? Someone thought phosphates would be high...why? But I drip a little milky kalk at night.

Someone thought I had live-rock in the tank when it started - it was just water and sand - and no evidence of anything crystalizing out of solution btw, just heavy brine. I added water, then the rock, expecting a big cycle, etc...I should mention that the rock was very clean in terms of sponge, etc on it and smelled like the ocean, not rotten, when I got it. And it's also quite large in relation to the tank (probably 1/5 of tank volume)

At the risk of getting flamed...tank now has a sarcophyton, several mushrooms, a green-star mat and a cat-eye. All extend fully under light (poor cellphone pic of shroom attached). A flashlight reveals several copepods in the water column and a largish amphipod (1/2") running around. I am getting a slight diatom bloom now on areas of 'dead' rock (I use amqueled/aged tap, not RO). I don't do SPS, but suspect that conditions are no-where near right for them.

I noticed my LFS sells bags of sand that claim to be 'live' (packaged damp) so the idea of bacteria surviving high salinity (and no energy source) doesn't seem so far-fetched. I think it was that combined with a pretty clean rock that eliminated/reduced the normal cycle. There was perhaps a high standing biomass of starving bacteria, so it's ability to absorb ammonia once metaolism/growth resumed would have been correspondingly high.

Has anyone ever tried that bottled bacteria to quick-start a tank?

 

[silent1]

It is possible for bacteria to survive long stretches in terrible conditions. Any of u heard of the bacteria found on satelites and stuff like that, dispite the fact there in space?
Ammonia and nitrites are dangerous, nitrates aren't as bad but are lethal to most inverts. Keep checking the parameters, you dont know wat has died and rotted for those past year. Im just wondering how could you stand being round a stagnant salt tank for a year.?

 

[Anonymous]

I remember something about some scientists finding and unearthing some bodies buried in the permafrost/tundra area somewhere way up North, and the excavation team all ended up with this disease. Damn I wish I could recall the details. All I remember was the fact that these bacteria had survived something like 50 years in the frozen ground.

8O