View Full Version : The great annual biofilter cycle time debate, or who can talk the longest?
Roddy Conrad
06-02-2005, 05:03 PM
About once a year, I publish some more biofiltration cycle data, and James Reillly (JR to most) spends about 10 to 100 times more time trying to discredit the data than I took to generate it. Let's see if this year is any different, or if perhaps JR is mellowing out a bit and can think outside of his tiny little box.
Last Fall, I moved all my koi from my outside koi pond to my inside koi pond to drain the pond. There were two objectives. The bottom drain piping had a leak, and the bottom drain valve needed replacement. Since both of these were buried deep in the ground, and required an empty pond, I decided to simply leave that pond empty all winter and fix the plumbing this spring. I also ran a "soap" test on the empty pond right before Halloween for Daniel Moreing, and as a part of that test ran 6 consecutive 10 ppm PP treatments through the entire pond and filter system to completely clean it up and burn off the biofilm. Activated carbon was used finally to soak away the soap from the soap test, the consecutive PP treatments had the pond bright purple while the water had a suds stand 6 feet high for a week before the activated carbon was used to remove everything from the water and filter system before draining the pond.
Well, finally last Sunday, the leak was fixed, the bottom drain valve was replaced, so I filled the pond with water and turned on the filter system. Then I added 500 milliliters of lab reagent ammonium hydroxide to dose the pond at a measured 2.4 ppm ammonia.
That was Sunday. Today (the normal 4 day miracle of fast pond biofilter cycling) the pond tests 0.5 ppm ammonia, 0.03 ppm nitrite, and 0.0 ppm nitrate by advanced Hanna colorimeter test techniques. The filter is cycled and ready for fish. I will add another ammonia charge just to make sure, it will be consumed in two days I am sure.
Why did the biofilter cycle so fast? Well, I dumped a 12 pond sack of baking soda into this 6000 gallon pond system. I dumped in 4 pounds of Koi Clay, also found to give fast biofilter cycle times, particularly for nitrite and nitrate cycling. I dunped in 3 pounds of pure calcium chloride and 3 pounds of Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate hydrate), also known to improve cycle time when the source water is soft with low mineral content. I have two large trickle tower filters, one is a No 5 Nevada Water Gardens lava rock fountain, meaning 24 inches in diameter and 36 inches high (heavy to move!). The other trickle tower is a homemade waterfall filled with feather rock in the air with water cascading over it. There is a Sacamento Koi bead filter and a Sacramento Koi glass filter in the system. There is a Nitritech 911 vortex system in the system. But the entire system had those 5 consecutive 10 ppm PP treatments right before draining the pond last Fall, one would think that would kill a biofilm very well.
There is no visible algae anywhere, no plants to consume ammonia. If the ammonia is degassing from the trickle towers, okay, there is nothing wrong with that if it is happening, the water is still safe for the koi! But from all appearances, it just cycles that fast. That filter system cycled that fast when every component in it was brand new a few years ago, this week only repeated the data I generated before with this system.
I also started up a virgin shower filter for my Brady growout koi recently. For some reason, that shower filter took 14 days to cycle, I don't know what delayed it. I used the same baking soda/Koi Clay/Epsom salt/calcium chloride mix in that simple system. The ammonia peaked in 6 days, I used Amquel to protect the fish, the ammonia was gone in 13 days. The nitrite peaked at 10 ppm on the 10th day, I used salt to protect the koi and did NO water exchange while the filter cycled. Lizzie said the growout koi acted differently when the ammonia was high and when the nitrite was high, but they did not get visibly sick, did not get ulcers, kept on growing, etc.
Well, that's all I got to say, meaning filter cycling has not been a significant issue for me for many years since I "got the right formula". That formula is to have plenty of shower or trickle tower filtration, keep alkalinity high with baking soda, keep hardness in a good range, and overdose with a huge Koi Clay charge.
It works for me, as they say on new car stickers, "your mileage may vary".
Good luck out there, don't expect me to respond to JR's normal long rants on the impossibility of what I have documented so many times now. What am I going to believe, JR or my lying eyes?
emmalou
06-02-2005, 05:35 PM
Wow Roddy..that's alot of stuff in the new water eh?? But if it beigns to cycle that quickly..and it works for you...cheers! I am old fashioned..I like the natural cycle...but it's good to know that there are alternatives out there.
Thomas T
06-02-2005, 06:45 PM
Roddy,
Don't you think 0.5ppm ammonia is high for fish keeping ? At a PH of 8.4, I had lost Koi to that level of ammonia. When I cycled my new pond, it peaked at 0.5 ppm on ammonia after 10 days and the took another 14 days before it goes to zero. Again this was done on a Nexus system using seeded K1.
TT
Roddy Conrad
06-02-2005, 06:55 PM
A level of 0.5 ppm ammonia at a pH of 8.3 certainly can make koi uncomfortable for a few days, but I have never seen them get visibly ill from that level of ammonia. But, after all, it will be gone tomorrow anyway, the cycle works that way in my filter systems. The Brady growout koi were tolerating a measured ammonia level of 2 ppm at a pH of 8.3 before I chose to throw in some Amquel to give them added comfort for the day or two it took the filter to finish its cycle on the ammonia.
I don't remember ever saying that a Nexus with Kaldness media was remotely competitive with a nice pile of cheap lava rock in a trickle tower or shower filter configuration? From my view, you spent your money on a Nexus to get a small footprint of a biofilter that does not work nearly as well as many cheap DIY trickle tower or shower filter arrangements. Okay, the Nexus "looks better" beside the pond, but my preference is to put up a fence to hide the ugliness of cheap, DIY, more effective filter arrangements, or choose to view a visible trickle tower in my mind as a work of beauty for the good it does the pond. To each his own, it is just a hobby after all, everyone must choose their options according to their own ponding priorities.
Sarge
06-02-2005, 07:28 PM
DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:yes: :yes: :yes:
KoiCop
06-02-2005, 08:10 PM
Wow, that's an impressive startup! Your regimen would certainly seem to short-circuit normal cycle times. :yes:
As far as:
About once a year, I publish some more biofiltration cycle data, and James Reillly (JR to most) spends about 10 to 100 times more time trying to discredit the data than I took to generate it.I don't know if JPR will bite or not. :no: He hasn't posted on Koiphen in quite some time (since the "Chantilly Meeting Room" and "What is Koiphen" threads). Don
WinginSue
06-02-2005, 08:22 PM
Okay.. not trying to argue here but clarify. I was under the impression that cycling was because the bacteria needed to grow in order to convert the ammonia. Are you saying that, due to all the stuff you dumped in that the bacteria grew that fast? I'm wondering why the filter is doing so well so fast. I have an upflow barrel on my temporary holding tank. I've watched it for the last five weeks. The matting started out the tan color. I've watched the algae and all grow on it, and the barrel as it matured. A lot of the growth seems to have happened in the last week. It might be interesting, once the fish are out, to try clening the whole thing up and seeing if it will grow all that (since I can see it) faster.
Roddy Conrad
06-02-2005, 09:25 PM
I have personally tested separately all the various "jump start" additives that work with MY water source to jump start a trickle tower or shower biofilter. I did the test of submerged media versus the same amount of media in a shower filter, and the shower filter cycled in one third the time to give four times the biofiltration capacity. This was the exact same media, namely virgin lava rock, and exactly the same amount of media in both filters.
So the largest single effect of a biofilter cycling faster is the media being in the air rather than submerged under water, in MY tests, with either lava rock or bioballs as the filtration media. Change the test media, change the test condition, and you will get a different result.
The single most important variable to get fast nitrite cycling, from my test work (and several others) is a massive overcharge of Koi Clay. How it stimulates nitrite cycling I don't understand, but it does it for sure, using my source water, in my tests. Higher alkalinity also helps, I run 200 to 500 ppm total alkalinity with baking soda.
WinginSue has an upflow filter, meaning submerged media, without the "extras" of high koi clay, high alkalinity, good GH levels. Expect that DIFFERENT situation to take 4 to 8 weeks to cycle versus my result of 4 days.
Roark
06-02-2005, 09:34 PM
Actually, you can cycle a filter in 3 days or less. And that's without using any "pre-seeded" media for "starters". That's counting from the moment you add water and "evil" chemicals, to the time you can support a significant fish load.
Yeah-yeah-yeah. And the experts say it can't be done. Pooey on them. :)
Roddy and I ran some tests on this about 4 years ago. Neither of us had any luck with the "bottled bugs" so we went hunting our own. Roddy had a *very* sharp microbiologist he was working with who yielded some deep insights into how these nitrifiers grow, what they want to eat, and what they need to be happy. Based on that input, we started noodling. And goofing. And it worked.
The only fly in the ointment was occasionally we'd come-up with a wierd mix of bugs which killed fish. Apparently when you tamper with nature she occasionally gets mad at you. But in other cases, it worked beautifully.
I'll leave it to Roddy to publish (or not) how we got there. In the past, whenever something like this was aired, it got shat upon by "experts", and he and I made a pact about this years ago... so beg him and see if he'll give-in. It was really his project with me doing tweaking and verification.
FWIW, I don't "publish" anymore for exactly that reason. I got tired of the arse-wholes laughing, jeering, and then ducking for cover when it turned-out we might be on to something. Anybody remember the "Four Horsemen Of The Apocolypse" and our KHV predictions? Nuff said.
Roark
OK, if I may ask, what were the parameters for the anomolous fish mortalities?
Roark
06-02-2005, 09:58 PM
OK, if I may ask, what were the parameters for the anomolous fish mortalities?
Just dead fish. :) DUCKING!!!
Roddy? Over to you!
Roark
Just dead fish. :) DUCKING!!!
Roddy? Over to you!
Roark
C'mon, that's weak! How 'bout a DING!!!
Koin-Onia
06-03-2005, 01:43 AM
Roark was DHMO involved :D:
Just dead fish. :) DUCKING!!!
Roddy? Over to you!
Roark
Roddy Conrad
06-03-2005, 06:23 AM
The three day dependable biofilter cycle used buttermilk as a key ingredient, sugar as a carbon source, baking soda for a significant alkalinity level, and an ammonia source such as household ammonia. Buttermilk contains the key stuff the biochemist said would do the job of stimulating biofilm growth. However, as Roark says, when we cycled a filter that way, and left the water in the pond, the fish dependably died in only a few hours from all the "bad" biobugs that combination grew in addition to the "good biofiltration" growth. We found if we cycled the filter with the buttermilk, sugar, baking soda, and household ammonia, then did a 100% water change, everything was okay.
That seemed too much trouble to me, and too likely to kill fish when folks did not understand the need for the 100% water change before adding fish. So I did more test work to develop the jump start combination with better filtration design, baking soda, koi clay, Epsom salt, and calcium chloride. This combination needs no water exchange before adding fish, at least not in my hands! Some of these additives are highly dependent on your source water characteristics, meaning the Epsom salt, calcium chloride, and baking soda. The filter design details are extremely important, I have worked on those details for many years using cheap everyday materials. A key ingredient in the biofilter design for fast filter cycling is having much of the filtration media in the air rather than submerged under water. And lava rock does cycle faster, probably because it has more surface area per unit volume, and probably because the lava rock carries with it key trace minerals that speed up biofilm development.
Like Roark says, the debate with the "it can't happen" crowd does get tiresome.
Koin-Onia
06-03-2005, 06:39 AM
This is getting interesting
I can tell you that I had a filter that I could not get to cycle. Light to medium fish load and had ammonia and nitrite issues I was using cloram-x to keep the levels down I switch to a product called serenity and this filter lit up like the fourth of July. I have been over feeding a little just to see if it will keep up and it is. I am going to use this stuff.
Lee B
06-03-2005, 06:55 AM
Roddy, you adjust the calcium chloride, epsom salts, and baking soda to accommodate your water supply. What target ranges are you trying to achieve?
Sheb, what's this "Serenity"??
Lee
Roark and Roddy,
I trust at least one of you will write up the procedure and get it published in NI or KOIUSA or Koi-Bito ....etc.
After all, if this works as described, the entire worldwide koi hobby could benefit.
Roark
06-03-2005, 09:08 AM
Ah... the truth comes out. :)
Roddy sorta low-balled it with false chemical modesty. The basic ingredients for the final tests were actually not something you'd find at the grocery store. (Lactic acid for example). And on occasion we'd brew "something" which killed fish even after a water change.
One of the suggestions made by Roddy's microbiologist was that we weren't brewing something akin to classic aquatic nitrifiers, but rather something "else" that produced similar results. I have a gut feeling he was right. The visible biofilm which quickly appeared from the "cocktail", also seemed to undergo a change after Week #2 after the fish had been added. The ammonia levels never spiked, but there was a change in color, texture, and thickness... as if the film was being modified or replaced by a new species.
Dunno. We eventually went in a different direction. But we did make a bunch of smelly messes and had lots of fun.
Roark
KoiCop
06-03-2005, 04:33 PM
over on the NI BB.
Seems a strange way to conduct a debate -- with the participants located in two separate locations? Don
DarleneD
06-03-2005, 04:43 PM
over on the NI BB.
Seems a strange way to conduct a debate -- with the participants located in two separate locations? Don
:To funny: :To funny: :To funny: :To funny: :To funny:
MikeM
06-03-2005, 08:45 PM
It seems to me that there needs to be an explanation and understanding of why the combination of additives did not result in prompt cycling of the new system before one can conclude that the procedure did cause a 3 day cycle in the old system.
Reliable repetition is needed, or one may simply be assuming a conclusion.
Roark
06-03-2005, 09:38 PM
See Roddy? I knew this was a mistake. :)
Back into the closet we go.
Roark
Roark
06-03-2005, 09:45 PM
I just read JR's rant on NI. Very, very nice. And exactly what we'd expect from JR.
JR: For the record, let me tell you what you MOST want to hear:
1). The method is a myth.
2). The experiments were a sham.
3). We were all just kidding.
4). It simply can't be done.
5). The "Real Koi Judge" is always right.
6). The Japanese invented it first.
Feel better? Good for you. God bless. :)
Roark
Well Roark, I've had about enough of the back bitting. Same thing your gal pulled a few weeks back. I forgive you both, you've had burrs under your saddles for a while- not sure why, but I've sensed it for a year.
Your experiment is just stupid- sorry, that is how it is. I'm not saying that, all the scientific information compiled to date is saying that, I'm just the messenger. But I tried to give you an 'in' to try and prove your point. I was even willing to try and understand where you and Roddrick were misinterpreting the facts and observations. I honestly think you smelled the details and knew you would be swamped, so you are pulling a hissy fit as a way out.
So you are always saying bring you the proof- now mate, bring ME the proof. You have already back peddled and suggested that mystery bacteria sabotaged your experiment. Could it be there was never an 'experiment'? Or at least that the results don't match the hypothesis or back it up in any way? Let's talk about why the three day wonder didn't work. I'll be kind, no victory dance, lets just get the newbies on track. I'll check my ego at the door if you can manage to do the same.
let's start with the basics- what is an ammonia/ nitrification cycle? Your go first. Little Jim
Roddy Conrad
06-03-2005, 11:13 PM
Today and tomorrow, I have a better playground for my mind. My co-inventor of key on line analysis technology for waste water streams in chemical factories (and elsewhere) showed up this morning to work with me on the newest and latest modifications to make our toys more productive and useful. Mike has two Ph.D. degrees, one in computer science, the other in nuclear reactor control (for which he had to have a very good security clearance!). He is an ideal playmate, and comes in every three months for a few days as my favorite work playmate in the chemical factory. When he leaves sometime this weekend to fly off to his next venture (he has a new one every week), then I will think about posting to this thread again in a meaningful way.
And, NO, Roark, I am not in retirement. I left one big chemical firm on my 60th birthday in 2001 to go across town to take the same assignment for another big chemical company. I like getting a full retirement from one company and a full paycheck from another one, it allows me to buy more fun playtoys.
Later.
Have a good time in the meantime!
Bancherd
06-03-2005, 11:20 PM
I am all ears, Roddy and Roark. :yes:
Do you have high-resolution graphs(enough to show peaks and valleys) of ammonia/nitrite/and nitrate concentrations during this cycle?
It would be nice to compare these graphs to conventional ~3 weeks cycle-time graphs.
Regards,
R & R , You guys started this by tweeking and bulling me out of thin air sooo now you have to both deal with me, here are the questions I want answered before the final swan song----
1) How is adding material to virgin water able to increase the life cycle and cell division ( at any temperature) of nitrifiers? According to some math I just did , you will need to reduce the cell division time interval to once every 30 minutes to create the physical numbers in 36 hours to handle say 20 pounds of koi. Am I mistaken in my belief that nitrifying bacteria is a slower grower than that? Or is there no physical limitation on cell division given enough ‘food’ ( I love that!) They can be grown at almost any rate- maybe down to minutes and seconds for each cell division?
2) How were you two able to overcome the fact that second stage nitrifiers are inhibited by high ammonia levels and every published study I have ever read says there is a lag time between the establishment of the 'tag team' unless you use Morin’s method?
3) If temperature is not as important a factor as baking soda, calcium or kitty litter, why is it that bacteria do not operate at the same rate in winter water as they do in summer? Is there any limit on the R&R method or does it simply work based on how much buffer you put in the water? If this is true how is it, acidic low buffered water like tetra tanks, are also able to cycle in 21 days, same as the marine systems??
4) And finally speaking of marine systems, saltwater in home systems is a synthetic mix in the vast majority of cases. It is very hard, very well buffered , loaded with carbonates, bicarbonates, has a high pH ( 8.2) etc. In most cases these folks use a trickle system below the tank. But they all seem to still need 18-21 days minimum to get a complete cycle from their systems? Why is that? Is it your opinion that they just think it takes 21 days and that it should only take 3 days under these conditions?
Roark
06-03-2005, 11:55 PM
JR: I'm having a few dozen of the resident Koiphen crazies over in a few weeks for dinner, beer, and some good, unwholesome, playing-in-the-water-that-we-drilled-our-own-selves fun. It starts on a Friday and there will be folks staying through Tuesday or even a bit later. That should be plenty of time for our little experiment.
To that end I'll steal a 150 gallon stock tank (my cattle will be less than amused), a couple of heaters, and I believe everything else I'll need for the brew is still in the chem locker.
Just to keep it fair I'll rope someone else into doing the testing portion. Maybe I can get Doug (Blammo) to bring his own kit so you'll know I'm not sandbagging. Me? I'll fill the stock-tank up, toss-in a bubbler and the "brew mix", and the rest of it can speak for itself. If it works, it's because Roddy took the time to make it work. He didn't let the know-it-all blowhards discourage him. He kept chipping away at the problem regardless of the abuse he got from "experts". For my part all I did was take what he gave me and tested it. And it worked. Simple, really. And I wish I could take the credit... but that wouldn't be fair.
Do I understand why the ammonia goes to nitrite so quickly? Nope!
Do I understand why the nitrite goes to nitrate so quickly? Nope!
Do I understand why fish sometimes die... and other times live? Nope!
Do I understand how ANY of it works? Nope!
In truth, I do suspect a few things, but I've learned to keep my opinions to myself. Your previous rants on the impossibility of a new disease (KHV) killing fish taught me well.
You really ought to attend, JR. You can be our guest of honor. I think it would be wonderful for the Texas Contingent to see you again. In fact, consider yourself invited. RSVP if you're interested. Dates are Friday, July 8th until... well... until the last man sobers-up. :)
Roark
All right I'm POed and I want some satisfaction, so please allow me to bring every one along so that we can evaluate the R&R research together. I will footnote all the statements I make for reference and further study. ( if nothing else we can all learn something)
Post #1
what is nitrification? Once we have had mineralization- the microbial breaking down of organic matter to inorganic matter, we have nitrification. Typically, this involves two symbiotic species that oxidize inorganic nitrogen ( ammonia) to other forms of nitrogen ( nitrite and then nitrate). The species that do this are hotly in debate in the microbiology community. But the ‘sets’ of tag teams are well known- In the first group, the ones that break down ammonia to nitrite we have many genera:
1) Nitrosomonas - the prototype studied bacteria ( an ellipsoidal or rod shaped bacteria
2) Nitrosospira - the bacteria that Dr Tom Havonec put on the map by saying it was the freshwater dominating form.
3) Nitrosococcus
4) Nitrosolobus
These are all chemo– auto– trophic bacteria . And they make their living by tearing apart molecules of ammonia , using the energy derived and throwing out the waste product as a molecule of nitrite and two molecues of oxygen.
The second set of bacteria families that is almost always found growing among and around the first set is the group that takes that nitrite waste and used it for their energy. This group is made up of :
1) Nitrobacter - the classic mate to Nitrosomonas.
2) Nitrospira
3) Nitrococcus
4) Nitrocystis
These chemoautotrophs tack an oxygen atom onto the nitrite and change it to nitrate.
These species also live on land , in the soil. And unfortunately, much of the printed literature is about these ‘farm animals’. That is OK as most of it applies to the ‘water cousins’, but not all.
In the water environment, autotrophic species must find a place among a more successful heterotrophic host of species– and it is not easy. This is because there are numerous metabolic interconnections between microorganisms and among microorganisms and macro organisms.
In a new pond, you must picture the beginning of ‘ the world’. It is truly a free for all as many species of algae and bacteria fight for the catalyst ammonia for their energy. This precious energy is called ATP and species like our nitrifiers must work extra hard to get the smallest amounts of this energy. It is said that nitrifiers work in a very tense energy situation. This means that for a cell to get enough energy ( ATP) it must oxidize 30 grams of NH3 to derive the same energy a heterotrophic species can gain from oxidizing 2 grams of glucose . As a result of this evolution , nitrifiers are known to have a long generation time and low growth yield. Some pros, in the lab, have pegged this time interval at once every 5- 8 hours depending on temperature and other factors.
I’ll end here and allow R&R to add there own data to refute this information I posted.
JR
Microbial Ecology: Organisms , habitats , activities by Heinz Strolp Cambridge press
The marine aquarium reference by Dr Martin Moe
Saltwater aquariums: the captive environment by Spotte Wiley Interscience.
Fish and Invertebrate culture second Edition by Stephen Scott PhD Wiley Interscience
Advanced reef keeping, Albert Thiel. Aardvark press
Brad Koikichi
06-04-2005, 12:17 AM
Serenity was a product called New Pond which is Distributed by Koi Kare Kennel.
Roddy, you adjust the calcium chloride, epsom salts, and baking soda to accommodate your water supply. What target ranges are you trying to achieve?
Sheb, what's this "Serenity"??
Lee
Roark
06-04-2005, 12:27 AM
JR: Your textbooks are WONDERFUL!
So. July 8th? Southwest Airlines (via ATA) flies from Newark to Hobby for $400 bucks and the seats are still available.
Roark
Nope , no good brother Roark, I want the science, not test results on a color kit. So you can appreciate what I'm asking- what good is a number - IN a moment in time, when the trend and cycle is everything?
Here's the deal- I know Roddy , last time we bench raced this thing, though that a cycle was when the ammonia reading dropped. This is fundamental misunderstanding and therefore a misinterpretation of the observations. A ‘cycle’ is complete when the complete transformation of ammonia to nitrite and nitrite to nitrate is completed, instantaneous and in equilibrium with the source or ‘generator’ of that ammonia. If Roddy had bothered to look at the graph I provided him, he would have seen that inevitable lag time between phase one and phase two. Secondly, he never grasped the idea that heterotrophic species reproduce at five times the rate of nitrifiers and that they also will ‘grab’ ammonia just as algae. And in a fight, heterotrophics win every time! It is only when the plotting along nitrifiers eventually wrestle away the dominate roll, that the other species decline- but this is a choppy road. And choppy can be translated as ‘wasted’ time. This why the Morin method or reverse inorganic method was created. In other words, for speed, keep it clean and inorganic in composition, start the nitrite oxidizers first and then double back on the easy and hardy ammonia oxidizers.
So honestly and sincerely, the zero reading in ammonia is meaningless. In fact , more aquarists only test for nitrite. This is the key to a complete cycle and not the drop in ammonia which is suspect , because so many organisms can cause that to happen. Even fungus and photo bacteria can create that illusion.
JR
Roark
06-04-2005, 12:32 AM
Nope , no good brother Roark, I want the science
What was all that earlier bluster about "showing" you? C'mon JR! I'm offering!
(laughing politely)
Roark
this is called ' Irish rage', its part of my charm-- JR
Roark
06-04-2005, 12:40 AM
Very, very charming indeed.
So. July 8th?
Roark
Koin-Onia
06-04-2005, 12:45 AM
Serenity is Ultimate - all the aloe crap Lee
Koin-Onia
06-04-2005, 12:55 AM
Ok I got a question for Jr
Your posts are very heavily backed with research and literature. And the explanation of the bacteria and various types was interesting reading now I am not taking anyones side on this debate (thats a nice word :rolleyes: )
It seems as though you are asking Roark for a different kind of proof that this works. I am unclear on what that is as I am no chemistand am wondering if you could put it in terms that I along with someothers can grasp better.
What I read from Roark and Roddy is exciting and yes I hope it does work.
Am I sceptical yep Kind of like the I am from Missouri state "Show me"
Roark
06-04-2005, 01:45 AM
These chemoautotrophs tack an oxygen molecule onto the nitrite and change it to nitrate.
JR... PLEASE tell me you don't actually believe this? Did this come from one of your books too? If so I want the NAME OF THE AUTHOR AND THE BOOK.
Roark
Lee B
06-04-2005, 08:26 AM
Serenity was a product called New Pond which is Distributed by Koi Kare Kennel.
Shhhhh! When elephants do battle, the mice take cover! But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your kind response. Thanks Brad!
Lee
Roark
06-04-2005, 08:29 AM
Sorry Lee. :) We pachyderms do tend to root-up the pea-patch, don't we? Speaking of which....
HEY JR!!! How are your "chemoautotrophs" working THIS morning?
Roark
what? what's wrong with that?
NO2- + 0.5 O2 ---} NO3-
And sparky, I'll be glad to give you some sources but what has your panty hose twisted about that statement?
Roark
06-04-2005, 08:39 AM
JR, it's called basic chemistry. To go from nitrite to nitrate, you're going to be adding an oxygen ATOM per molecule. Go look at your earlier statement.
So. July 8th?
Roark
luke-gr
06-04-2005, 09:09 AM
errrr... Roark and Roddy, I keep seeing references to fish dying....you did get that part fixed, right??? :confused:
aaah nit picking! No grasping for straws mate, if you can't even answer the 'FOUR GREAT QUESTIONS' put before you last evening! " Quick look over there!!!" as the R&R team runs out the door! LOL
Here is the actual quote I was thinking of at midnight-ish last night-- it comes from Marine Aquarium Desk Reference ( systems and Invertebrates) by Dr Martin Moe. Page 176--
" these bacteria gain energy through the oxidation process of tacking another oxygen atom onto the nitrite molecule ( NO2) and changing it to nitrate ( NO3)---"
my apologies to Dr Moe for being sloppy in my wording.
JR
OK here is what R&R research Inc are actually seeing in their not-so-profound experiment-
But first some analogies! You would not make a leather glove three sizes too large for a hand and then say, “ Its OK, I’ll shrink it down to size later on” -----
A biofilm, will mold itself to the nutrient source. That means that if you throw hunks of hamburger meat into a pond, you will get one kind of bacteria domination and if you through in bottled ammonia you will get another type of evolution to the biofilm in that pond. Now here’s the thing- a koi pond is an environment that MUST manage both organic waste AND inorganic waste. It is of no value that a biofilm is created that can only manage inorganic ammonia from a fish’s gills.
On the other extreme, we do not want a system that is loaded with organics to the point that nitrifiers are pushed into a minor role. This can get complicated and maybe something for another thread, but suffice it to say, ammonia can inhibit uptake of other nitrogen wastes like nitrate. So we need to create a system that will do both mineralization as a minimal role and nitrification as a major role. Fortunately this is not as hard to accomplish as it sounds. Because the old line “ if you build it, they will come” is very appropriate to the situation. Meaning, you simply need to provide the right environment, the right filtering techniques, the right media surface, the right circulation and these things will happen automatically.
What the R&R brain trust fails to grasp is that what a pond biofilm WILL be and what it is INITIALLY are often too different things. This is why we have a phrase called ‘New Pond Syndrome’.
The rapidly appearing, rapidly reproducing heterotrophic species can not complete a nitrification cycle. But they can mimic it! This is a CLASSIC dynamics when setting up a new pond or aquarium. Perhaps this was said best by Quastel and Scholefield way back in their paper published in 1951- Significant ammonia oxidation by nitrifiers proceeds only after heterotrophic population has subsided and stabilized.
By providing the type of organic material the brain trust did, they supercharged the heterotrophic populations into a frantic cellular division. The ammonia drops but the cycle can not go anywhere. In addition , bacteria of this kinda community , as an incubator concept, will include large numbers of opportunistic pathogens- including the aeromonas, flexibacter and pseudomonas groups. The deaths are more likely due to the general stress of the water chemistry created by the addition of copious amounts of material- or simple infections of the gills? I really can only guess.
Here is the final point- once this system is allowed to do its own thing, it will revert to a normal cycle and mold itself to the actual nutrient source - in terms of quantity and quality of that specific nutrient source. In other words, in spite of R7R research team’s best efforts to derail the natural cycle, it will correct for the interference and proceed normally after they get over themselves and walk away. But New Pond Syndrome will be Bee-ach! Ergo the El morte nishikigoi along the way.
JR
Roark
06-04-2005, 11:28 AM
Ah. I see it all now. Very cool. :)
First JR says it won't work, can't work, etc. Then he he gets so grumpy he can't tell the simple difference between atoms and molecules. (He'd have slaughtered Roddy if Roddy had made that mistake... but for someone else it was just an excusable "oopsie!" because *he* knew what he *really* meant.) But suddenly JR is effectively saying that this hare-brained scheme just *might* work but of course it can't possibly work the way *he* thinks we *said* it does.
What I clearly said is the ammonia and nitrite get converted. And I specifically stated that I didn't understand any of it. And I specifically stated that I didn't think it was via the usual bunch of aquatic nitrifiers. Go back and read the posts. I posted nothing but observations... which were summarily disemboweled by JR.
But now, in the face of having to come here and actually see it happen, someone is suddenly formulating new facts, revising history, and inserting his *opinions* about experiments he's never even seen and claimed were JUNK. Someone has managed to go from a "it can't possibly work" to a "well...here is what they're REALLY seeing".
I love Revisionists. :)
I'll say it again. And this is a verbatim quote from my earlier post. Nothing has changed:
Do I understand why the ammonia goes to nitrite so quickly? Nope!
Do I understand why the nitrite goes to nitrate so quickly? Nope!
Do I understand why fish sometimes die... and other times live? Nope!
Do I understand how ANY of it works? Nope!
Recall that it was JR's position just last night that it CAN NOT WORK. Period. And that the "experiment" was laughable and a complete waste of time. Now he seems to be saying it COULD work. What next? An admission that it DOES work, but he'd never use it in a "proper koi pond"?
July 8th is coming, JR. And there isn't any way you can spin what you posted earlier. Nor can you state that "JR was the voice of reason / lets all keep an open mind". The threads have been printed and the audience was listening.
Spin again.
Roark
hey Sparky, I'm not spinning or changing a thing- The hypothesis was that you could cycle a pond system in 3 days. That is completely stupid. I have not changed my position on that an ounce. What I was attempting to do was show you how the actually likely dynamics could lead you to believe you had a cycle. So all these 'ahha's! aside, I've been very consistent here.
1) Roddy can not perform a complete nitrification cycle in 3 days, nor can you.
2) the drop in ammonia is not a 'cycle'.
3) bacteria have certain limitations on their life cycle and you can't change that with various powders.
4) I was simply trying to help you two to understand what you were actually seeing and how you were misinterpreting your results.
I also told Roddy and you both that other species can mimic nitrification. It is well established that nonlithotrophic bacteria and fungi have the capacity to oxidize NH+4. And this heterotrophic process appears not to be connected with microbial growth. It is likely a form of co-oxidation. The key here , Sport, will be the amounts of nitrate produced. If the nitrate production is negligible, you are looking at heterotrophic activity.
JR
Roark
06-04-2005, 03:21 PM
JR:
You are booked on Southwest flight 4277*/1876, departs Newark, NJ for Houston, Hobby at 1:52 PM on Friday, July 8, 2005. You'll arrive at 7:20 PM. I'll pick you up at the airport. You'll return via Southwest on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 1:45 PM via flight 496/4282*. You'll arrive home at 8:27 PM. You will be our "Honored Guest Speaker". Suitable room and board where you can personally supervise the experiment 24/7 will be provided.
I will provide a laptop projector with a document arm, a 100 inch screen and a microphone/dry-erase board. Your "why this is absurd nonsense and can't possibly work" presentation will begin at 9:00 AM on Saturday, July 9, 2005. I'll have a hardcopy of everything you've posted in this thread available for your use. After your presentation I won't be making any comments. Results speak louder than lectures. Post-lecture I'm simply dumping-in the brew and starting the well-class as planned. Feel free to get hot and sweaty with the rest of us "hands-on" types if you like. Failing that, stay out of the way.
Several folks have emailed asking if they could video-tape this. I don't have a problem with it, but I figured I'd better ask you.
Please email me with a physical address where I can FedEx your ticket.
Roark
Roark
06-04-2005, 03:48 PM
JR... one more thing. Be sure to bring your assortment of meters.
Roark
Bonnie-IN
06-04-2005, 03:57 PM
OOOOOHHHHH we always love a good debate as long as it doesn't get personal! :cool: :mad:
Roddy so glad to see that you are feeling much better now, you rested up for this one! ;)
"It's all about the hobby!"
L5Vegan
06-04-2005, 05:14 PM
Since both sides can't be right if you're talking about the same thing, I thought I'd check a definition.
This is what I see:
New pond syndrome (Roddy): The period of time in a new pond that the bio filter is growing to handle the ammonia produced by the fish. Beginning with either the introduction of fish or ammonia, it is marked by measurable ammonia followed by nitrite. Ending when the nitrite is gone.
New pond syndrome (JPR): The period of time in a new pond when bacteria and algae species are battling to stake their claim on the available nutrients in the pond. Beginning with the introduction of the nutrient source (fish addition or other means) , reaching a midpoint when the desirable mix of species (both flora and fauna) have establish themselves as the dominant forms in the pond, and finally ending when the pond reaches maturity. Marked by stability in species type and density, and in the case of bio filters a well established protective biofilm.
Am I close or way off base? :thinking:
Dan
Roark
06-04-2005, 05:35 PM
I don't speak for Roddy, so I'll let him fight his own battles. Me? I speak for myself. Recall:
Actually, you can cycle a filter in 3 days or less. And that's without using any "pre-seeded" media for "starters". That's counting from the moment you add water and "evil" chemicals, to the time you can support a significant fish load.
The experts can rant/rave/beat on their drums, but at the end of the day, that snippet above says it all. JR can define "cycle" however he wants. He can even pooh-pooh one species of bug over another. I really don't care. Certainly the fish don't have laboratories, don't read textbooks, and don't know or care what species is processing their sewage... just as long as it gets done promptly and without hurting them. If those species die-out and are eventually replaced by other bugs... wonderful!
However you do it, and by whatever names you call it, it's all the same: No ammonia? No nitrite? Low nitrate? BINGO. You've got a winner. The bookworms can call the responsible species "BlammoBacter" for all I care. :) :) :)
Roark
Roark, you're a lovely lad for making the offer but unfortunately, that weekend is the beginning of 'Birthday week' for yours truly. Besides, you people carry guns out there. I only have a knife. And if we are going to do this right, I need to stay for 21 days- even my own saintly grandmother can't put up with me for 21 days!
Dan, that is incorrect, but if Dr Peach chooses that definition then we will all begin to see where his misunderstanding is coming from. What you described was the end of the cycle for establishing a biofilm -that moment when the nitrite reading drops to clear after remaining very high for a few days to a week ( just as harmful as the ammonia spikes that occurred earlier). It signals the completion of the cycle. But the film may still not be in equilibrium and things like green water and periodic nitrite spikes are still possible. So it takes on average 21 days to cycle at 70 F and up to another 3 months to become stable and truly in equilibrium. During that time, you will see the algae evolve on the pond walls as well. Some have experienced new pond syndrome for as long as a year. Perhaps the greatest barometer are the fish. It is very common during this New Pond syndrome period to have fish with nagging infections and ulcers, flashing and blooms of parasites. All linked to new pond syndrome.
JR
Roark
06-04-2005, 05:53 PM
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. I took away all of your excuses and even bought you a ticket. (I did this only after you said "I'm thinking about it" because I didn't think it was fair to make you spend $500...and then lose.). I lined-up folks to shoot video (Paul) and double-check your measurements (Blammo). I offered you a chance to get it ALL out in the open and even make an educational seminar of it. Today I spent bolting together the test fixture, stealing parts for it, etc. I've even got two Lim pumps coming-in on a hot-shot Tuesday for this project.
But in the end it's all a waste. This was never about proof for you. It was about domination, opinions, and obtuse rantings. You said "prove it", and then you backed away from the proof.
No matter, JR. We still love you. And you do have pretty fish. And you're a darned good koi judge, too. In fact, you're one of the (book-) smartest people I've met.
But... So much for "Show Me", eh?
Roark
MikeM
06-04-2005, 06:59 PM
I'm still wondering why "it" did not work on the virgin system Roddy referenced in the first post. If "it" only works sometimes, then it is as fair to say something else was involved and "it" never worked.
The experimentation is all good to do, but if it is not consistent and subject to reliable repetition, I'd suggest it is not appropriate to encourage others to risk it.
Roark
06-04-2005, 07:25 PM
Ed-Zachary, Mike. Which is why the Full Monty hasn't been published. This is called "in-the-trenches-experimental-goofing". I certainly don't want the basement plonkings of two "nitwit" koi-nuts to be touted as a cure-all for bio-cycle woes. :) The honest-to-Pete truth is we don't know why it works. But the RESULTS are clear.
A comment: Roddy is using a rather different "mix" than I am, and seems to be having better luck. I haven't goofed with "my" mix for something like 4 years. Roddy kept the faith long after I'd gotten bored with it.
Roark
In defense of JR’s honor!
The in-house tag team’s enforcer, Roark, has suggested here that I’m just ‘book educated’ and implied that I have no hands-on experience. I’d like to set that record straight.
Sure I'm giving you all some 'book stuff'! It is a the body of knowledge accumulated in microbiology books, graduate text books, aquaculture books and popular aquarium text books. Nothing wrong with that? How would we all learn anything without books? You two boys have more degrees than a thermometer between you, I assumed some books were involved?
But I also bring some practical experience to the table so I’m not just another pretty face! ;).
Setting up even a simple aquarium can be an art form as much as a science. This is particularly true when it comes to seeding a pond or fish tank and also, in setting up, before hand, what your system will actually be like when it stabilizes. It takes a lot of vision to appreciate this last sentence- something you don’t just get from a book.
I have sent up, over my life time, conservatively, 70 aquarium and pond set ups. In fact today, I have five aquariums running, one pond and a quarantine system. The fish tanks house marine fish ( some born right here!), live bearer tropicals, wild fish from the streams and estuaries of North Carolina and fancy goldfish ( for the love of GOD, do not let that get out!)
I'm pretty impulsive about the fish tanks, and a few times a year, I tear one or two down, give the fish and offspring to the pet store and move onto another variety, or another ecosystem theme, a few months later. So I have cycled many many systems. I have also consulted and advised the fish stores/ wholesalers setting up their systems. Did a huge one in a wholesale facility with a central system that circulated 16 thousand gallons of water! I also designed a fluidized bed unit at the end of every bank of tanks in another wholesale facility. That was way back in the mid eighties. It ran on simple silica sand! The clouds within the clear cylinders ‘undulated’ with a white cloud of suspended sand and the stocking levels were obscene, yet the death rates dropped 20% in those banks for tanks.
I have published papers/articles in marine magazines and one journal regarding the conditioning of biofilm to copper levels and another regarding the transfer of media to avoid a new cycling event in new systems. You can read old articles about biofilters I wrote in NI, Koi USA, MAKC and numerous club newsletters. Most are penned before the two member R&R wonder team were even in the hobby, I suspect?
In the koi hobby I began using Trickle towers when they weren’t cool! The year was 1986. I understood even back then, the importance of degassing water loaded with the waste of a large fish and how this negatively effected nitrifiers. The concepts of reducing bio-fouling and the advantage of expanding water/atmosphere square footage seemed like good ones - and I never looked back! These concepts are now available, twenty years later, to the average hobbyists in the form of the nexus ( dynamic media) and bakki shower ( wet/dry biofilter). Yours truly had this concepts down in 1986.
I still was not satisfied, however. The winters separate the pond keeping hobby from the aquarium hobby. By winter’s presence, a fundamental problem is created for all bacteria and more precisely, for the mature biofilms- I.E.- survival.
In all modesty, I think I was the first hobbyist that moved filters indoors in this region of the country , and began to heat the base of the media itself? I’m sure there were others somewhere, but I did it in kinda a unique way I think? I pleased insulted plastic coated copper coils inside the base of Trickle towers ( in flooded portion) so that warm water and warm air rose in the eight foot tall columns. This was done with a small recirculation pump and a boiler. In this design, the bacteria is always warmer than the fish. Think about that one for a minute---
The biofilm never died and old sloughs off due to trickle action. Hey my biofilm was 19 years only last month!! ;) My experiments in the marine hobby and the conditioning of biofilm to manage therapeutic levels of copper taught me the value of aged and ‘locally’ evolved biofilm.
What I’m trying to say is , I have a balanced view point here and not just the book stuff that only provides a background for understanding. The ‘cartoon-like’ descriptions of biofilm that we tend to read about in lighter weight fish publications are a good primer only. Yet without this basic ‘book knowledge’ you will find your thoughts will be all over the map in terms of what is possible and what is not possible in an emerging biofilm. R&R research is proving that right here- if you don’t have a good working understanding of the underlying biological facts, all things seem possible? Unfortunately many of these things are grounded in actual well documented PROFESSIONAL experiments that have been proven over and over again through the last thirty years of scientific research and published papers. It may cause a tantrum in the uninformed R&R research team, but it is none the less , the way it is. The creation and addition of concoctions and potions to pure virgin water in order to create strange new microbial forms that appear in three days and make ammonia and nitrite disappear, only sometimes kill the fish, is a romantic and exciting notion! Unfortunately, it also requires that your mind is free from all actual scientific facts. I’m ruined boys, I’ve read too many books! ;)
Now, I’m off to work with last night’s dish water. I think I’m onto a cure for cancer! ;)
JR
Roark
06-05-2005, 08:08 AM
Didn't yer mama tell ya you'd go blind if you keep doing that? :)
Roark
I said I'm READING the magazines, not looking at the pictures! ;) JR
Roark
06-05-2005, 08:23 AM
Oops. Sorry. I was too busy looking at the pictures to carefully read what you wrote. :)
Roark
Roark, speaking of the book stuff, here is a very neat illustration from a text book showing the classic growth of nitrifiers over time in ideal conditions- enjoy
Thomas T
06-05-2005, 08:33 AM
I always love a good **** fight :D:
Roark
06-05-2005, 08:34 AM
Sorry JR. I'm not gonna bite. Those are ping-pong balls and YOU KNOW IT!!!! :)
You've been watching too many Captain Kangaroo episodes.
More to the point I'm shocked that you'd post something with subliminal pictures it. Look at Day 10, 4th construct from the left. Clearly a chinese dragon. And 5th from the left is a crumpled house. So what you're REALLY saying is you want a chinese dragon to bite my house. In the rain. Clearly in the rain. Because the rest of the image is blue.
Ping-pong balls, however artfully arranged to convey covert, satanic messages, has nothing to do with the subject.
I'm going back to my girlie magazines. :)
Roark
luke-gr
06-05-2005, 08:39 AM
Roark, am I understanding that sometimes your process works and sometimes it doesnt and sometimes fish die?
Roark
06-05-2005, 08:45 AM
Luke: Very much so. Go re-read... ummm... I think it was post #5? :)
Roark
Some time we have to talk about the genetic component to biofilm formation. It is mind blowing, I think, to realize that these tiny cells have a 'genetic memory' that allows for a predisposed, architectural design to a biofilm. And that this biofilm becomes an ecosystem housing other species that make a living from the film. As in any ecosystem, there are producers, grazers, ‘conditioners’ and predators, There are also precursor microbes that breakdown, pull apart or otherwise alter nutrient to make it accessible to the nitrifiers, who otherwise have to access to the inorganic materials. As it turns out, bio-degrade ability is not a given, it may take other microbes to recondition the molecule. And most importantly, there are partner species that reduce toxic materials and others that remove inhibiting materials for growth of the dominating species.
This is a sort of ‘brave new world’ for the ponder because in the lab, studies on bacteria tend to revolve around pure- one or two species cultures. In the wild, communities tend to limit diversity due to scarceness of nutrients. But in a koi pond! Lots and lots of fuel for diversity. I’m not sure if we should look at that model as a food-fest or a struggle for existence?
So Roarkster, you are captivated and to a degree, kept captive, by thoughts of a chemist. There is physiology of the community, geography and ecology to consider. Indeed you can not talk about a pond’s biofilm community members without using terms like - commensalism, protocooperation, symbiosis, altruism etc.
Very cool stuff.
JR
Roark
06-05-2005, 09:23 AM
They're PING PONG BALLS, JR.
("...Jeeze. Ya buy 'em books, send 'em to school... and they eat the teacher. Miserable little monsters anyway...")
Roark
aaah, but they are different 'color' ping pong balls and that means something! Can you guess from the colors their identity? Anyone? Here's another hint ----
JR
aaah, but they are different 'color' ping pong balls and that means something! Can you guess from the colors their identity? Anyone? Here's another hint ----
JR
The blue :( balls eat amonia
The red :mad: balls eat nitrite
The green :sick: balls eat nitrate
Ron
Ron C
06-05-2005, 10:52 AM
Okay!!!! Finally!!!!! after several years of watching this pissing contest, I think I have finally got it. Note that I haven't personally met any of the personalities involved in this, except Roddy, whom I like. I think it basically comes down to symantics.
What JR is saying is that you can't completly cycle a filtration system of heterotrophs and Nitrosomas in three days. The science supports this fact. No argument there.
What Roddy and Roark appear to be saying is that they can produce biofiltration that removes ammonia and nitrites in three to five days (I went with a number that is average from other posts I have read). It is a fact that they have pulled this off. If the system isn't totally cycled, it will be eventually. What we should be concerned about is that the ammonia and nitrites aren't in the water to harm our fish. It would seem to me that Roddy has accomplished that, the system will continue to mature without the possible harm of ammonia and nitrites.
So it looks as if both sides are right?
PRD, you are very close!
The blue ping pong balls ' eat' ammonia
The red ping pong balls 'eat' nitrate
The green ones eat ammonia, organics and dead blue and red ping pong balls!
Ron C, it seems you need to watch and read this 'pissing contest' ( honestly if that is what you think I'm doing- stop reading my posts!) a little longer! In the normal scenario, the one the rest of the planet subscribes to, you will cycle a system past the deadly zones of its evolution with several techniques- seed it and slowly move bacteria count numbers up as each fish is added will those elevate numbers and ambient ammonia readings will be tame- or sub lethal. OR seed ( add an existing establish sample to the virgin system) and cycle it in preparation for a full load in which case, you use ‘surrogates’ for the ammonia ( not too high as ammonia will actually inhibit the operation of the nitrifiers at very high concentrations) usually produced by a full load of koi. This brings the biofilm up to a level that can support say, 15 pounds of poop’en and breath’en fish. The ‘surrogate’ ammonia is best- initially a pure form of ammonia followed by a protein and then starch based form. This will roughly correlate with what the film will face when it’s show time and the real thing is introduced to the system- fish----- big beautiful, dirty carp!
The ‘other’ road is a series of illusions in which the nitrifiers must wait their turn and due to their slower duplication, they must certainly be pushed to the back of the line. In this case, the true cycling of the pond is actually slower, in the long run. Meanwhile fish can die, fish are stressed and things like aeromonas and pseudomonas counts are generally higher. You do not want stressed fish in contact with high aeromonas counts.
Roark old bud, do me a favor? Have a count done on the water in that horse tank when you get your ammonia and your nitrites down , say on day four. Let us know if any aeromonas levels are present?!!
Roddy, please reconfirm that nitrate levels are almost none existent when your super fast cycle is complete.
And Rod C, please, they are NOT the same. For all I know the ammonia is being bound or made unreadable from their secret sauces/mixes? I can make ammonia read zero with certain clay preparations for instance- we have no idea if we are actually even talking about bacteria if we want to really bench race this idea? We have no clue, as the scientific method requires ;
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Dr Peach, by the way, is most guilty of this common pitfall:
Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.
Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.
Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."
Rather stunning, since he is throwing his Scientist ranking in our collective faces as absolute proof of this abilities to be objective ?!
Believe me, It is not me saying these two are all wet, it is the massive body of information/research complied to date that says there is another explanation for what the boys are believ’en or wanting to believe.
JR
Eluned
06-05-2005, 12:35 PM
The idea behind the ping pong ball graphic is showing that the distribution of biobugs (nitrobacter, nitrosoma and heterotrophs according to the graph) is non-uniform. The other concept is that the biofilm has a three-dimensional architecture, and is not a mono-layer. I've seen a lovely (EM?) photograph of biofilm showing how convuluted the surface is and how the inside is channelled.
There will always be clusters of the same bacteria (since they reproduce by simple division), but the waste product of one set of bacteriais fuel for the next set, so an efficient biofilm will have lots of contact between the ammonia converters and the nitrIte converters. I think that the heterotrophic bacteria are believed to be responsible for some nitrAte conversion, though I think that off-gassing also helps reduce nitrAtes. Heterotrophs also feed on organics from the biofilm as bacteria die. As the biofilm matures, the heterotrophs play an important role in scavenging waste. Diatoms and green algea will also colonize media, as will all kinds of motile and sessile microscopic beasties.
A healthy, stable biofilm usually requires more than a year to establish. The stability is not a static thing, but dynamic, since nutrient balance changes with the season and the activity level of the fish. Ideally temps should never drop so low that the biofilm goes quiescent. Dosing a pond with chemicals disturbs that balance - which is the big reason to avoid pond treatment whenever possible.
If you build it they will come - the 'good' biobacteria need surface area, mechanically clean water (so that the media is not fouled by organic waste) lots of oxygen and the chemical substrates that fuel their growth. The good biobugs use up oxygen, which is why submerged biofilters are notoriously inefficient. Taller biofilters seem to work better, perhaps because they allow for more off-gassing?
(JR posted while I was typing - oh well......)
Eluned
06-05-2005, 12:49 PM
What Roddy and Roark appear to be saying is that they can produce biofiltration that removes ammonia and nitrites in three to five days (I went with a number that is average from other posts I have read). It is a fact that they have pulled this off. If the system isn't totally cycled, it will be eventually. What we should be concerned about is that the ammonia and nitrites aren't in the water to harm our fish. It would seem to me that Roddy has accomplished that, the system will continue to mature without the possible harm of ammonia and nitrites.
So it looks as if both sides are right?
Roark has made the point that their witches brew sometimes created either levels of pathogenic bacteria or levels of toxins (byproducts from the conversion) that killed fish. JR has made the point that test kits are indirect measurements of ammonia, nitrIte and nitrAte - and that other substances in the water can greatly alter the accuracy of those test results. Other substrates in the water may be interfering with the kit reagents to give false negative readings.
The concept of the biofilm as an ecosystem is an important one. I would NOT assume that the short-term end product of a natural cycle would be the same as the end product of the artifical cycle. After a year they may be the same, but not after a month.
Eluned, are you married?! ;) LOL
JR
Blammo
06-05-2005, 02:57 PM
Lord.
I reckon I shouldn't post the fact that I can take a brand new system, be it concrete, poly, or whatever and have it fully ready for fish, with perfect water parameters, in less than one hour in most cases .
Even with stocking level of 1 koi per hundred gallonz.
Sometimes I can pull it off in 15-20 mintes if the tank is only 4500 - 5000 gallons.
:neener:
Nah nah na nah naaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh ;):p:
Buttermilk is great for marinating venison too. :yes:
Roddy Conrad
06-05-2005, 03:09 PM
Let me get this right, the stock broker who was once a veterinary lab tech, and who is not doing biofiltration research, is telling the professional research scientist, who made it to the top professional research grade in two of the largest chemical companies in the world. that the research scientist does not know how to do research of science? This is so funny it is absolutely nuts. Excuse me for taking most of the weekend off from this discussion to invent a new piece of technology related to water quality measurements with another fellow who has a double set of Ph. D. degrees! What a bunch of stuff!
Like Roark said, when we did the buttermilk/sugar/baking soda thing, the filter cycled fast but the water used for the cycle killed fish. Do a 100% water exchange, or move the cycled filter to another body of water and pond, and it was ready to go. Did that a bunch of times in those days. But I thought that bunch of science was too risky to teach, so gave it up to develop a quite different approach. With the current fast cycle technology, at the end of the cycle, I throw fish into the pond and never see a blip on the pond readings. The filter is cycled, the water is safe. And, yes, there is not nitrate most of the time, but occasionally I do see high nitrate with fast cycle test under certain conditions. If the filter has only submerged media, I see loads of nitrate at the end of the cycle, if the filter has lots of trickle tower or shower media, usually there is no detectable nitrate, sometimes there is significant nitrate. That varies with details of test conditions. The last two fast cycles had no detectable nitrate, intentionally so, I adjusted test conditions to avoid nitrate formation.
Like I said in the title of this post, this is the annual biofilter cycle time debate, I can do this fast biofilter cycling dependably. The theory behind it is not in the best of shape yet, I admit that. But I have made lots of inventions I for which I never figured out the basic reason why it worked so well, the patent office and the chemical industry don't care about the theory, they just want the technology to do something useful. So here I am again, another significant breakthrough, maybe patentable, but since the patent fight would be long and hard, and since I don't want to risk our nest egg on patent attorneys for biofiltration technology, I am trying to "give away this technology" to the ponding public. JR wants it not to exist, because he did not "think it up", so he thinks if he writes 100 times more words than I do on public message boards, he will convince folks this technology doesn't exist. Well, it won't be the first time JR was wrong, and won't be the first time he tried to cover his many errors by continual long rants of meaningless garbage.
Roark writes humorous one liners to indicate what JR's posts mean to him. I think Roark is better at this insane public debate than I ever will be, he is far enough away from the fray to keep his right sense of humor about the subject.
My good buddy flew away last night to his next invention (in sunny Southern California), we were insanely successful during his 1.5 day visit to develop the next generation of on line specific water quality analysis, and I am having a very nice day at home with Lizzie. So I don't plan to write on this insane discussion again today, it is mostly meaningless dribble, at least the portion coming from the veterninary lab tech who thinks he knows more about science than the professional inventor of chemical technology.
Roddy, buddy, pal, love muffin! LOL Who is being Elitist now! It is true I was a lowly lab tech, uuhhh, I was also 20-22 years old! I understand the leader of France was a fast food store manager at that age! And although I’m not a lowly stock broker , I am a lowly fixed income portfolio manager. I am not what one would call ‘highly’ educated, at least not by your standards. No PhD and no doctor by my name– ;(
You and Roark trump me there , no question. But I gotta tell you, I do know more about this stuff then you two put together. Of that I am confident. In fact, if you recall, when you were doing these dopey experiments way back, you would write me- remember? Shall I see if I have the old Emails? At any rate, all along Roddy, you have shown a real weakness in biology. Do you remember when you didn’t know the difference between parasites and would describe the life cycle of one and unfortunately it was in reality the life cycle of another? How Steve C tortured you on that one! Even then, as a lowly once upon a time lab tech, I knew things like that in theory and in real life practice---cold!
And lets be fair here- my bio is not all that bad? I put myself through college and got a BS in zoology. I managed to move into the position of hospital administrator where I managed a vet lab, a chain of Vet hospitals and an emergency clinic group. After completing my masters in animal behavior I got my MBA in administration. I paid for the whole thing as a twenty something year old kid. So by the time I was 27 , I had two undergrad degrees and two Masters. By 29, I was a Vice President of the rather prestigious ,100 plus year old firm of Kiddy Peabody, and in change of municipal financing distribution to the North Eastern region ( that’s New York my friend- the big time ). I tell you all this to say, I ain’t no slacker! And what I have seen is YOU make those slacker errors I posted under ‘common mistakes’ and the scientific method. You are ABSOLUTELY drawing conclusions with no testing and rationalizing results. You know, when we went around on this last time, it became obvious that you were not understanding that the word CYCLE did not mean - when the ammonia levels dropped! HOW could a professional inventor of chemical technology not know that???!!
I know Shiro Muji was even kinda shocked at the time. I posted this same graph then that I posted earlier today, to try and lead you to water. But you were so defensive you rejected it out of hand because it didn’t jive with your results. You kept saying, “do I believe JR or my lie’en eyes”. It was not JR you should believe, he was only a messenger of the greater body of scientific information. This is a classic example of what I’m talking about when I posted ‘ common mistakes when evaluating the results of the scientific method.’
And Dr Peach, I take NO credit for any of the explanations I have given you on this subject since day one! IT is not ‘my information’ to claim. As I have said, maybe ten thousand times, it is a body of information published by the microbiology and aquaculture communities. It is there for ANY one to draw on! So I’m not defending MY position. I’m just laughing at yours! ;)
I didn’t realize that Roark’s way of ridicule was short answers- thanks for that heads up, I was taking him at face value.
Now lets be nice to one another! Please tell me what you think you have created with your special mix and trickle towers- what is your hypothesis NOW?
Your lowly pal , JR
And so boys and girls, we end another chapter of ' the great bacteria wars'.
I suggest we now have a poll, who believes a biofilter can cycle in 3 days and support a full load of koi flesh? Mods get the voting started please---
JR
Koin-Onia
06-05-2005, 11:27 PM
I wish you guys would start to debate dang you all just really won't say whats on your mind.
Hey Roark did you check the hazmat rates on that DHMO yet:rolleyes: :D:
Roddy Conrad
06-06-2005, 07:16 AM
I always read the comic section of the newspaper because that is where I usually find the "better truths" of the world. Humorists have a way of saying what everyone else has been thinking in the most effective ways. I find the "non sequitur" in this mornings comic in our Charleston Newspaper, that Lizzie and I agreed has JR down pat! The character in the comic says," I want to grow grew up to be the new breed of scientist, the preconceptual scientist. That is the new science of reaching a conclusion BEFORE doing any research himself, then simply dismissing anything contrary to his preconcieved notions. " That is how JR dismisses anything I might say without having to look at my data, or data Roark may present, or data right in front of him if he had taken Roark and Savannah up on their offer of a free plane ride to south Texas and a weekend of fun and data gathering.
But JR says his participation in this discussion is over. Good! Now maybe we can talk science and sense, without the preconception scientist dismissing it all. Hey, Blammo, how do you get a new system ready for a high stocking density quickly? Anything interesting in YOUR DATA?
Good morning Dr Peach! "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me!" ;)
Yes it's true, I have nothing else to contribute, if I ever did--. You now understand my position if not the pesky facts. So I wish you and Roark luck with your three day cycling technique.
On another, but related subject- are you aware of anything that would make ammonia or nitrite 'unavailable' for/to bacteria or to measuring by test kits? Think now---
( hint: a physical and inorganic event?)
And Finally, I'm going to ENFORCE the scientific method here so as to help you two with 'outside' information so that you can question your own data:
1) test the ORP during your three day cycle- accept that you will not have any nitrifying activity initially below a 250 Mv reading.
2) the lack of nitrate, a natural and inevitable byproduct of nitrification, is not present when heterotrophic species are managing ammonia and nitrite. Further, the bulk of these species will abandon that source ( ammonium) once organic material accumulates and they move to mineralization/ammonia assimilation.
3) If #2 is true, then flexibacter, aeromonas and pseudomonas will complete this array. This should be tested out.
4) nitrifying bacteria must attach and grow to an initial critical mass for biofilm production. It is believed that a form of communication takes place between cells ( chemical) once this population level is attached and secure. This is why most systems are seeded initially- for their numbers. with no seeding, you depend on the few cells, that may be present, and they must first reach mass and then create the glycocalyx structure. Because this exopolymer structure acts as an ion exchange resin, strongly charged molecules are actively removed from the passing water and also from water passing through the matrix. This all naturally requires time. I would suggest that you disinfect the stock tank and use water that has been boiled, so that you start with a true virgin system for testing accuracy. I would also suggest that you run a control tank that is seeded, kept at 74 F and aerated. Again- scientific method boys.Test your hypothesis.
5) And Finally, it would be of much more value to know what the 3 day culture does after three days than what it does in three days. Ending the experiment and not monitoring the subsequent 30 days would invalidate the entire experiment in this lowly, for comic relief only, lab tech's mind?
JR
Roark
06-06-2005, 10:33 AM
Aristotle believed the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Aristotle was a pontificator who believed that sheer force of mind alone could resolve any problem. Aristotle was a philosopher. He hated getting his hands dirty.
Galileo PROVED the planets revolved around the Sun. Galileo was a tinkerer who believed in hands-on experimentation. Galileo was a scientist. He loved using his hands.
Interestingly, Aristotle was cheered by his peers and The Church. Sadly, Galileo died a broken man, escaping execution only after signing a Church "confession" that he no longer believed in his revolutionary ideals. (BTW: He lied. His on-going works were published after his death).
Virtually none of Aristotles "science" remains intact today.
Virtually all of Galileo's science still exist, and indeed form the cornerstones of modern day physics, math, engineering, etc.
Had Aristotle spent less time writing tomes of learned rehashes of other peoples rehashes, and had he spent more time actually DOING, as opposed to TALKING, he might not have missed-out on so much.
Just some food for thought.
Roark
Koin-Onia
06-06-2005, 01:11 PM
Roark I will say you have a way with words. Now that Jr has declined you offer are we still going to do the test during the well diggin deal? If so I am all for it I will tape it and post the results via a mpeg or avi for all to see. I have had some strange things happen that really could not be explained in the military the tac an radar (sp?) send out 7 signals and recieved 14 back the people that tried to figure out why all washed out the ones that accepted it graduated.
Aristotle believed the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Aristotle was a pontificator who believed that sheer force of mind alone could resolve any problem. Aristotle was a philosopher. He hated getting his hands dirty.
Galileo PROVED the planets revolved around the Sun. Galileo was a tinkerer who believed in hands-on experimentation. Galileo was a scientist. He loved using his hands.
Interestingly, Aristotle was cheered by his peers and The Church. Sadly, Galileo died a broken man, escaping execution only after signing a Church "confession" that he no longer believed in his revolutionary ideals. (BTW: He lied. His on-going works were published after his death).
Virtually none of Aristotles "science" remains intact today.
Virtually all of Galileo's science still exist, and indeed form the cornerstones of modern day physics, math, engineering, etc.
Had Aristotle spent less time writing tomes of learned rehashes of other peoples rehashes, and had he spent more time actually DOING, as opposed to TALKING, he might not have missed-out on so much.
Just some food for thought.
Roark
luke-gr
06-06-2005, 02:11 PM
Luke: Very much so. Go re-read... ummm... I think it was post #5? :)
Roark
OK, unless Im missing something... what is the point of pouring stuff in if you dont know if the fish will live or not???? :confused: I'll shut up and let you guys talk :D:
koiboy123
06-06-2005, 02:52 PM
Roark & Roddy,
Here's an experiment I tried that worked beautifully and you won't find it in any of those scientific books JR mentions. What does he know? I'm thinking of patenting my idea?
Here's what I did, I had green water that I just couldn't get rid of so I thunked up something to try. I poured one gallon of household bleach into the pond and within 24 hours the pond was crystal clear. I could see a dime on the bottom of the 10' deep pond and could almost read the year it was minted. Oh, did I forget to tell you all the fish died but I did have clear water?
Maybe R&R could explain the difference between their ground breaking experiment and mine? You cycle in 3 days or 3 hours, you never know when Roddy is telling the story and all the fish died. I got clear water in 24 hours but all the fish died? Or maybe instead of your sarcastic's remarks, R&R could answer some of the intelligent questions JR has put to you two ego maniacs?
Cheers,
Lonny
P.S. My experiment was a joke, just making an analogy to the stupidity of the R&R experiment.
Roddy Conrad
06-06-2005, 06:23 PM
OK, unless Im missing something... what is the point of pouring stuff in if you dont know if the fish will live or not???? :confused: I'll shut up and let you guys talk :D:
Luke, the fish live fine in my current biofilter cycle formulas and protocols. It is the buttermilk and sugar in the recipe for fast cycling that kills fish. My current recipe combines good biofilter design, an intelligent biofilter media choice, baking soda, Koi Clay, ammonia as the starter, and if the water is not hard enough, addition of Epsom salt and calcium chloride. This current recipe cycles filters fast and the fish do not die when thrown in the pond after the filter has cycled.
A number of years ago, perhaps 5 years ago or so, the Roark and Roddy team ran experiments with buttermilk/sugar/baking soda recipe. With that recipe, if there is not a 100% water exchange before adding fish, the fish die. But we could usually cycle a virgin filter overnight with the recipe, then we could do a 100% water change, throw in the fish, and never see any significant amount of ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate at high stocking densities.
The current recipe does NOT cycle overnight; it usually takes 3 to 7 days, but there is no need for a water exchange. However, the biofilter design is critical to the fast cycle time, submerged media still takes 4 to 8 weeks to cycle with all other conditions exactly matched (water chemistry, ammonia load, Koi Clay charge, baking soda charge, and so on). And some media will NOT cycle fast even in good shower or trickle tower designs, lava rock cycles the fastest in good shower or trickle tower designs, followed by bioballs. Media with very small pore openings will not give a fast cycle even in optimum designed biofilters. The best example of a very poor media is the alpha grog rock used in England that they are so crazy about, it won't work for me at all. The pore openings in that rock is too small to give effective filtration, so no matter how alpha grog is used it takes a very long time to cycle the media.
Roark
06-06-2005, 06:55 PM
I've never seen alpha grog up-close-and-personal. Where do you get it and what (exactly) is the stuff made of? Pore sizes? Maybe a picture or two?
Roark
skydiverfloyd
06-06-2005, 06:56 PM
A bit off subject but here goes. I cleaned out the pond dug it deeper put in bottom drains and settling chamber. It has been 5 weeks since the fish went back in. I have been feeding ALOT, I have no ammonia,nitrite,nitrate. Is it possible that the chloramx I put in originally is still breaking down the ammonia if there was too much put in to remove the amount that was in the tap water? Is there any other reason I would not have any readings? The water is also green.
Pond is about 7500 gallons. The meter quit working at 4500 gallons. I did the salt treatment to come up with 7500.
Thanks
Jack
" Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in!" Al Pacino -Godfather
Roark, Roddy warned me about you! ;)
Nice ramble, weak analogies there and full of holes, I'll give you a 3 out of a possible 10 - your thinking cap must be on the fritz today?
Roddick love, You say here-- ( and remember this is the email chain I was in on, back then)
"A number of years ago, perhaps 5 years ago or so, the Roark and Roddy team ran experiments with buttermilk/sugar/baking soda recipe. With that recipe, if there is not a 100% water exchange before adding fish, the fish die. But we could usually cycle a virgin filter overnight with the recipe, then we could do a 100% water change, throw in the fish, and never see any significant amount of ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate at high stocking densities."
Roddick? How would you know IF you had a cycle overnight? You seem to be suggesting that they were 'estblished' as a functional colony but somehow the water was poisonous- is that correct? What did you measure? Ammonia reading? Are you trying to say that in 24 hours, in a virgin system with virgin media, you have created a full complement of oxidizers that can manage the ammonia you are adding? And this is because you have added baking soda and clay to the water?
Roddy, I have resisted all the mockery that has crossed my mind and not put a single one down here in print. But PLEASE tell me you don't really believe this overnight business- please!
Hey Roarkie, you reading this???
JR
Roark
06-06-2005, 07:00 PM
Unfortunately that's all too true, Roddy. Personally I think he's got ya there. After all, you in fact DID NOT ask JR if your media was actually cycled. And we all know if JR says your media it isn't cycled... well.. .there ya go!
Roark
Bancherd
06-06-2005, 07:03 PM
I am still waiting for data showing ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate as a function of time during this cycle. :rolleyes:
Doc Conrad, could you please set my mind straight and restate what do you meant when you said the system was "cycle"?
(My) first rule of discussion: Agree on the definition.
Roark, Aristotle/Galileo example is :no: , think about Einstein. :thinking:
:cool:
Graham
06-06-2005, 07:09 PM
And some media will NOT cycle fast even in good shower or trickle tower designs, lava rock cycles the fastest in good shower or trickle tower designs, followed by bioballs.
If the type of media used, can make a major difference, then I'd suggest that that whatever is happening doesn't have a bloody thing to do with bacteria. I don't think that bacteria are all the fussy about what they colonize.
Lets see Alfa grog has extremely small pore opens...lava has large, bio-balls has large, bakki has large...seems like void space and gassing off has a lot more to do with this than and nitrifying bacteria and the nitrogen cycle :rolleyes:
G
Roark
06-06-2005, 07:21 PM
Graham;
I suppose it may be possible, but if that is the case, then why do the compounds added make such a difference? Filters without Roddy's additives take much longer to eliminate ammonia than filters treated with the additives. If it was just a media question you'd expect the media selection alone to control the equasion, ya know?
Roark
Roark
06-06-2005, 07:31 PM
Blanchard:
Good point. "Cycle" to me is the ability to safely support a reasonable fish load. From the standpoint of the fish, what bug species actually do it, how they get there, and their proper names (if they're even known) would seem to be irrelevent.
My logic is that nobody takes a piece of their media into a lab to run tests on it and gets back a report saying "you're 92% cycled". Instead, folks simply observe ammonia and nitrite readings. When they're down to only tiny, transient bumps... you've got "cycle".
JR may have a different definition, and I'm curious to learn it, but in the end I think he'll have to agree that we all determine "cycle" by observation as opposed to scanning electron microscopy. And assuming you did an actual lab analysis, the results would be quite dynamic. The colonies ebb and flow throughout the life of a pond, determined by a multitude of factors. To this end I don't think there can be a "perfectly cycled pond". We simply measure, observe, and pronounce "cycle!"
Roark
Certainly Graham, as serious fish geek ( that’s a compliment by the way! ;)) can answer for himself. But I would suggest that we are looking at a binding due to the calcium bentonite or some other similar phenomena from chemicals used? I also might suggest an effect on test kits with certain chemicals added to the test pond?
Certainly in 24 hours, even the heterotrophic influence in a virgin system may not be powerful enough to get readings of zero? Roddrick was the typical water temperature you worked with?
JR
Graham
06-06-2005, 07:35 PM
Roark I have no idea and neither do you guys...you're seeing a result and have no real idea how you got there. All scientific data says that nitrifiers do not reproduce that fast...then Roddy makes the statement that the media makes a difference and it must have something to do with pore size and/or void space.
What we need here is a microbiologist and not a couple of chemists...get a lab and see if any nitrifying bacteria are actually present on any of the good media, in sufficient numbers, 3 days later after adding Roddy's cake recipe. There a lot of discussion going on here without any actual scientific data being brought up on yours and Roddy's part....only results, from adding very basic ingredients...
The term ''cycled'' does not belong here
G
Graham
06-06-2005, 07:40 PM
The idea that CB binds up the nitrite has been brought up before, but it's not repeatable on any kind of consistent basis. If it was all that reliable the then manufacturers would be on the band wagon...People like the Hagens, AP, Jungle, ML don't let wonder cures slip by...........
G
Koin-Onia
06-06-2005, 07:40 PM
Ok exxxplain this
Filter running for 3 months after a 9 month effort at a different location disassembled and shipped to a new location. The filter sits for 30 days not recconected. I hook this filter up and put a heavy fish load on it. The nitrites and nitrates and ammonia go to extremely high and unacceptable levels thus to be expected and it was planned for.
Attempt #1
I threw prime and amquel plus (both are garbage) at it and the ammonia was reduced slightly nitrites as well. Ph bounced baking soda was added to stabilzed the ph and raise the kh. 5 weeks of this on light feeding and still there were issues. This is with water changes on a daily basis of 10 % in the am and pm. Oh I also used salt at .19%
Now I got a tad ticked at this filter and decided I was going to make it cycle as the tanks total 1200 gallons so I started hitting it with cloramx and the ammonia dropped nitrites were there. I continued using salt and the results were a tad better but still with just one normal feeding they would all go wacko again so back to the drawing board.
I ran across something doesn't matter what it is. started using it and the results were a tad faster on removing ammonia and nitrites. but what I started seeing was this fuzzy growth in the filter it was like tiny hairs it moved with the water in the filter and was stuck to anything with surface area. The ammonia was in check nitrites nitrates ph yada yada. So here is what I did I fed alot all they wanted for 1 week straight with the same water change schedule. As Emeril would say "Bammm" this puppy was dead on. No salt no baking soda nothing else added. So can a filter cycle in under the experts standardized time frame yep you bettcha. I got one. I got the proof and the daily charts with it all documented.
Roark
06-06-2005, 07:50 PM
JR: Very civil post. Thank you for that.
Part of the data says it's not all being "bound" in the stuff I worked with. It *does* produce nitrite. A part of the ammonia may ALSO be bound-up in the clay, but clay by itself won't make nitrites. Could it be a dual-effect? Sure. Maybe. Dunno. (But if you look at the zeolite structures which are so good at grabbing ammonia, and look at the clay structures, there certainly are some similarities. My suggestion? Go down this road and try it and see. Dump-in a bunch of clay, some ammonia, and see what happens! If you get a rapid reduction in ammonia... you've learned something useful)
But for me that nitrite is the cause for pause. Where is it coming from?. There isn't any purely "chemical" process that is going to whack those hydrogen's off the nitrogen and bolt a couple of oxygen's on in their place. The energy just isn't there. Not in a pond, anyway. Something else has got to be happening. But as to what it is, I've clearly stated before that "I don't know".
In one of JR's posts he suggested that "something else" (psuedo's, aeros, etc) may be doing it. I have no reason to argue with that.... or to believe it, either. Certainly at this point nobody really knows.
Roark
Roark, Cycling– and again, NOT JR’s definition, but THE definition– is as follows:
‘Cycling’ or the ‘start up cycle’ is slang for the establishing of the nitrification cycle as a noted and monitored starting event. Cycling as a concept is - the complete establishment of the nitrification cycle. That is, when ammonia is instantly converted to nitrite and nitrite to nitrate. This is predictable, sequential and measurable phenomena.
The time required for cycling is determined by the initial bacteria count, the oxygen, pH and temperature levels and the quality/quantity of the nutrient provided.
The usual ‘mechanics’ involved in creating the cycle involve seeding media, ‘feeding’ media and then maturing media so that it is in equilibrium with the systems nutrient ( ammonia) production. Ultimately we call this the conditioned system.
Roddy Conrad
06-06-2005, 08:07 PM
The cycle is still complete if no nitrate is produced with the newly cycled filter, and no nitrate is ever seen at detectable levels in the pond with the cycled biofilter and a large fish load.
So if the definition requires measuring significant nitrate, the definition should be thrown out with yesterday's wash.
Roark
06-06-2005, 08:08 PM
Roark I have no idea and neither do you guys...you're seeing a result and have no real idea how you got there.
You are ABSOLUTELY right. In fact, if you told me aliens had landed and stolen my ammonia level, at this point I'd believe you. Ask me a chemistry question and I'll give you an answer. Ask me a microbiology question and I'll defer it to someone who KNOWS. That's why Roddy had a microbiologist watching his goofings. I'm not a microbiologist, nor is Roddy... and neither is JR. That's why I reported observations only.
One side comment which has nothing to do with the current topic however. It pertains to the commercial guys somehow missing this. Yes, IMHO, they could have. It's a big world out there, and anybody can play if they want to. By way of example I'll put my money where my mouth is and show you something they missed. :) Send me an old pair of jeans, a shirt, or some article of clothing that you've ruined with potassium stains. If you're like me you've got a bunch of 'em in the corner of the closet. I'll send you back the shirt, with a video, that shows the stains completely disappearing in less than 30 seconds... and the fabric won't be harmed (except where the color got oxidized by the PP). This bit of chemical trickery is completely unique and unknown anywhere else. Do a search on it and see. *I* developed it out of a desire to stop throwing-away potassium-stained jeans. Marketable? Maybe. Unique? Definitely. Big market? No way. :)
Roark
JanetMermaid
06-06-2005, 08:16 PM
Last time I had surgery I asked the anesthesiologist how anesthesia works. He said they STILL don't really know... it just works. So just because Roark doesn't know exactly how their "soup" works doesn't mean it doesn't. I'm looking forward to the 3-day cycle test in July at Roark Central. I'll bring my laptop and create a spreadsheet to track the tests and chart the curves. I'd suggest tests every 4 hours with the most accurate test chemicals available.
Graham
06-06-2005, 08:21 PM
That's why Roddy had a microbiologist watching his goofings
and this microbiologist had what to say about Roddy's cake recipe.......
Roddy ''cycling'' in the fish hobby refers to the Nitrogen Cycle........ and has for the last 45 years that I've been keeping fish...which is the establishment of nitrifying bacteria as JR just pointed out...Since you have no proof that any bacteria colony was formed, find a new word call it the ' Roddy Recipe''
G
Is the jean stuff the same stuff that they sell on TV for cleaning wine stains off carpets...by one for $19.95 and we'll toss in a second for free :D:
luke-gr
06-06-2005, 08:36 PM
Roddy, thanks for clarifying for me about the dead fish... ;)
koiingaround
06-06-2005, 08:37 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Misc%20Shots/NitrogenCycle1.bmp
I found this while doing a search on Nitrogen Cycle info... :)
Lordy lordy, I have given this hint three times now- let me not be so subtle this time--
Super Chemist-- what is the electrical charge of calcium bentonite? What is the electrical charge of an ammonium ion? Getting it yet? Come in, hello, ground control to uncle Peach---
JR
Once again Roddy, I require a medal for surpressing my 'first comments' regarding this theory of yours posted in the other parish--
" My theory is the biobugs are laying dormant in the Koi Clay, and when they see the ammonia they multiply in great numbers very fast in ideal conditions. Please note I said I dumped 4 pounds of Koi Clay into a 6000 gallon pond system that had been well nuked before it was shutdown and drained for the winter."
THIS is your theory?! Roddy, love, peach-- boy you are worse off than even I thought! Good lord man, read a book!
OK Roarkie, are you hitching your wagon to this star as well ?! ;) JR
Mr Pete
06-06-2005, 09:13 PM
JPR,
Is that how "Koi Clay" comes into play?
..
Graham
06-06-2005, 09:40 PM
JPR,
Is that how "Koi Clay" comes into play?
..
Which way in that it has dorment colonies of nitrifying bacteria :rolleyes: which btw can't form spores or go dorment or the electrical charges of the ions
g
MikeM
06-06-2005, 09:43 PM
For those observers getting lost on the clay discussion, clay is composed of microscopic crystals which will adsorb ammonia ions, such that a portion of the ammonia in a body of water will become stored on the crystals. The ammonia has not been converted to nitrate. It is stored on the crystals. Depending on the chemistry of the water, this storage may be relatively permanent or very impermanent.
....Now, back to the show. :)
Pete, that would be a good guess. I'd have to test it, but the original 'discoverer' of montmorillonite noted in 1983 that the charge in bentonite clay would attract ions in water. It is one of the reasons it was cast in koi ponds back in the eighties. The British manufacturers then started adding finely ground zeolite to the mix and others added fine activated powder carbons. All built on the idea of expanding the use of casting clays.
The final explanation could be different for Roddy and Roark’s different approaches- even though they see them as ‘the same’. I'd have to know the temperatures they are working with. If there is a bacteria involved in the ‘risky Roarkian scheme’ it will be a rapidly reproducing heterotrophic species and the proof of that will be in the low ammonia reading, a low nitrite reading and NO nitrate production.
The bacteria of these types is typically a swarming species. It may be at least possible to collect and isolate it, stain it and make certain comments about it?
Or better yet, culture it right from the water. Once the presence or lack of presence, is confirmed, you could concentrate on the degassing and mineral binding theories.
BUT again, I must admonish our resident scientist, Roddy, here as to his sloppy treatment of the scientific method- Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed.
Instead of testing out the various variables, Dr R has rationalized that secret hidden nitrifiers are alive and well in the desiccated , highly milled clay powder. This is so far fetched as to be ridiculous. Not to mention it is the wrong species entirely and no amount of clay will seed a biofilter! Yet this is latched onto because it suits and fits the desired outcome- very sloppy science– a gale darned stock broker could do better! :) JR
schildkoi
06-06-2005, 10:18 PM
I have had numerous emails/PMs asking why I haven't jumped into the fray. Two simple answers. First off, I have been a tad busy the last couple weeks and missed it! Second is that as much as I like to debate with Ol Roddy and even my buddy Roark and possibly be the calvary riding to JR's aid, I gotta admit when I haven't a clue...at least not to this level of discussion on this subject!
JR, ride on...I am in your corner and pulling for ya! :)
Where's that **** bell to ring? :)
Steve
Not to worry mate, holding my own against two giant heads--- I mean 'minds'! ;)
not to shabby for a lowly stock broker lab tech! ;) JR
Sarge
06-06-2005, 10:30 PM
DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!
DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!
What does that mean? Is the thread locked down now or should we stop the conversation/debate or something? Hey wait a minute, I thought you gave up this job description Sarge!?! JR
Sarge
06-06-2005, 10:40 PM
What does that mean? Is the thread locked down now or should we stop the conversation/debate or something? Hey wait a minute, I thought you gave up this job description Sarge!?! JR
JR, I got no ability to close, move or any of that stuff - Just figured yall needed a breather after the first blood bath round - EXCELLENT LEARNING for a DOLT :eek: :eek:
stephen
06-06-2005, 10:41 PM
Let's Get It ON:eek: :cool: :cool:
Sarge
06-06-2005, 10:45 PM
Let's Get It ON:eek: :cool: :cool:
I mean, I don't need no powers for that do I :confused: :confused: Pam said I could keep DA BELL :yes: :yes:
ROUND TWO - Round one was a DOOZY -
DING DING DING!!!!
Roark
06-06-2005, 10:50 PM
The Koiphenator has spoken!
So with that in mind I'm going to *officially* call JR a pigeon-toed knee-biter with flat feet. And dandruff. Almost forgot the dandruff. And a hump-back.
So there. That outta hold him! Pfffttt!!! :)
Roark
Lynda in Arkansas
06-06-2005, 10:51 PM
Sarge is the ONLY person fully trained and qualified to RING DA BELL!!!
No one else dares to even try... :no:
Roark
06-06-2005, 10:53 PM
Well... can I at least tinkle it a bit? Softly? Glancing taps with a padded hammer?
Roark
And Roark, to THAT I say ," I know you are but what am I"-- Do we have one of those smiley faces that sticks it tongue out?
Bed time, see ya'll tomorrow. Best, JR
Roark
06-06-2005, 10:59 PM
Hmmph! Insults will get you nowhere, JR. If you wanna rumble with the BIG DOGS, you better bring peanut butter, leather chaps, and young, nubile, strawberry blondes. LOTS of 'em.
Darned republicans anyway...
Roark
Koin-Onia
06-07-2005, 12:57 AM
Ok fellas
I have a brand new set of tanks for holding or qting. I will volunteer my neutral (mostly) siding here and run this test here providing daily updates. I do not want to interfere with the Texas Testing so if you all would like this I will do it. If not we will see it in Texas.
If wanted here is what I will propose
I will build the filtration to Roddy and Roarks specs
I will add the appropriate amount of suggested spices as directed by Roddy and Roark.
I will add fish at the suggested or appropriate time.
I will take tests as proposed by Jr. At the instructed time intervals as well as provide any data requested to decide whether or not the filter has actually cycled.
What do you think?
Ding d... **** clanger broke
koiingaround
06-07-2005, 03:49 AM
And Roark, to THAT I say ," I know you are but what am I"-- Do we have one of those smiley faces that sticks it tongue out?
Bed time, see ya'll tomorrow. Best, JR
Is this it JR??? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/4_15_3.gif
Then there are these...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/23_4_115.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/23_4_149.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/23_4_113.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/23_145_14.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/23_4_176.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/23_4_177v.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/CommunicationSmiles/4_2_205.gif
But sometimes you guys seem more like these http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/Fighting%20Smilies/10_9_134.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/Fighting%20Smilies/10_16_1.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/crichardson/Smilies/Fighting%20Smilies/jedi1.gif
Roddy Conrad
06-07-2005, 06:11 AM
For those who think the Koi Clay chemically binds ammonia and/or nitrite. I did try the nitrite idea once. I put nitrite in a beaker with Koi Clay and aerated it a few days. No nitrite reduction, so Koi Clay does not chemically bind nitrite. I did not do that specific experiment yet with ammonia, will get around to it soon.
More Koi Clay does seem to make the cycle time of a virgin filter faster, no argument there. Why does the Koi Clay help? Three theories. One is the trace minerals help that much. Two is the idea that Koi Clay has some dormat biobug that converts ammonia and nitrite when activated. Three is the chemical binding theory. I already tried the chemical binding theory with nitrite, and discarded it with experimental data. So that leaves the other two theories, unless there is something wrong with the experiment of mixing a massive amount of Koi Clay in a beaker with nitrite for several days and measuring no drop in nitrite.
Again, the speed of the fast cycle is terribly dependent on the biofilter construction details, and to my interpretation we are dealing with biofiltration instead of chemical binding, or direct degassing of ammonia.
Oh, let's see, we need to keep up the name calling, right? Hey Childers, good to see you don't jump into the fray without something to say, other than to choose sides with no knowledge of who is right and who is wrong about the subject under discussion!
Didn't I see some others post that their filters also cycle so fast there is never any ammonia, nitrite, or nitrate spike, and nitrate never gets high in the long run? Does that not suggest it is something that happens many places, and not just in the R&R world?
By the way, the microbiologist said buttermilk contains a key advanced ingredient to synthesize cell growth, and the clear whey would have been a better choice if available. Maybe JR can put that in his pipe and smoke it. Roark, does your notes from those years ago have that little detail? Too many hard drive failures here to still keep my notes, could call the microbiologist again, he is still in town and still hard at work at that company I left on my 60th birthday in 2001.
Roddy , good morning! You will be pleased to know that I'm well rested and ready to have some ' rocket fuel scientist' for breakfast! ;)
First, before I go off to the office to sell stocks to unsuspecting widows and orphans--- you mentioned that your super secret, microbiologist says that buttermilk has super secret ingredients to 'enhance' growth in bacteria? Mummm, lets look into this a little closer and you tell me if the buttermilk can over come certain realities regarding nitrifier growth------ ready?----- Rant unit on--- powered up---- all systems on go---on my count-- 3,2,1------fire in the hole!----
Why nitrifiers grow slowly, some actual scientific facts:
Nitrifiers have been the subject of intense study for almost a half century because they are so important to wild ecosystems farming, waste treatment industries and aquaculture. And with modern instrumentation and technology in general, including tiny detection probes ( smaller in diameter than a human hair!) many secrets about the operation of a nitrifier cell have been revealed.
Nitrifiers produce very little biomass yield for all the work they do! As I mentioned earlier, Nitrosomonas has to oxidize 30 g of NH3 for production of 1 gram of biomass. If you compare this to a heterotrophic species like E coli, this little bugger can produce 1 gram of biomass from only 2 grams of glucose!
Scientists have proven that the low yield is related to the relatively low amount of energy generated during oxidation of the reduced inorganic substances, AND to the high energy requirement for generation of reducing power. For thermodynamic reasons, the + uction of NAD + by direct coupling to the e-donor NH+4 or NO-2 is not possible, because the redox potential of NAD+/NADH is - 320 mV, but that of NH+4/NHOH is +899 mV, and that of NO-2/NO-3 is + 420 mV.
During oxidation, the electrons enter the respiratory chain at the levels of cyt c and/or cyt a. Consequently, only one site is available for oxidative phosphorylation, leading to a relatively low gain in energy for the cell itself. In addition, a large part of the available energy has to be used for generation of reducing power ( NADH) required for CO2 fixation, in an ATP- dependent process of reversed electron transport. The nitrifiers therefore, live in a tense energy situation, which is mirrored by long generation time and low yield growth.
Oxidation reaction is fine at a neutral ( 7) to slightly alkaline pH ( 8). The reason for this is that the bacteria prefer non ionized NH3. The mixed functional oxygenase requires molecular O2 , one O ATOM ( just for you Roark!) going into NH2 OH. In the second step, which is catalysed by hydroxylamine-oxidoreductase and leads to nitrite, the electrons are coupled to cyt a 1, resulting in generation of ATP. The bugs, my dear friend, have their symbolic 'hands full'! This is why individual cells tend to grow large before using energy to divide. it is also the reason that it takes about three days for biofilms to adjust to new added loads across the board. Exception being in Roddyville of course, where things operate on a different reality! ;)
When we add to this cellular reality, the fact that all this occurs within a matrix that must be evolved over time, we quickly realize that clays and baking soda will not change the thermodynamics, the physiology or the genetic program. Cells must attach to media, permanently attach to media, signal community members chemically, produce a polymer to create the matrix they live within and eventually create individual cell size and numbers to be in equilibrium with the ammonia levels available on a continuing basis.
Roddy, is any of this sinking in?
Lowly lab tech stock broker scum JR ;)
** Microbial cycling of bio elements ( Applied and environmental microbiology- Microbial ecology : organisms, habitats and activities - H Stolp
MikeM
06-07-2005, 09:22 AM
I think there are a number of factors that can be identified to theoretically explain R & R's results. The use of clay will capture some ammonia ions. The more used, the more captured. The organic additives will contribute to an environment more suitable for heterotrophic species that will consume some more. The use of trickle tower filtration will degas still more. None of these factors will lead to production of nitrate. An environment temporarily suitable for fish could be produced. Dealing with the level of nitrite would become an issue, as I do not believe it will degas or adsorb as readily as ammonia.
The degassing effect of trickle towers/showers can be very powerful. When Keirin Koi constructed a new pond at their facilities (last winter, I think it was), ammonia levels were unacceptable until huge Bakki Showers were made operational. Within 48 hours, ammonia was undetectable. There was no cycled filtration media and the pond was not considered suitable for normal stocking because there was no cycled filter. However, the ammonia readings were fine apparently due to degassing. The volume of the pond content being degassed per hour/minute would be a material factor.
Unicellular algae growth is another factor to consider. The posts are unclear whether the water took on a greenish tint. Unicellular algae prefer ammonia over other forms of nitrogen and can consume significant quantities.
All of these factors, and perhaps others, could contribute to the results recorded. This would not mean the pond is cycled. Ammonia digested by algae will be released when the algae dies. Ammonia adsorbed on the clay crystals may be released as pond water chemistry alters over time. Unless the nitrifier colonies have become established to deal with these eventualities, the risk to the fish is like a guillotine held by a fraying cord.
There are many interim steps that can be taken to control nitrogen until nitrifiers become established. The commercial ammonia binders are the common example used frequently. The establishment of a sustainable nitrogen digesting biota is the requirement for safe fishkeeping. I do not think the recorded results are consistent with such being accomplished. This is because readings of ammonia and nitrite were still being recorded. It is said these were at levels which the koi were able to survive, at least at times. However, the readings posted are not ones I would consider appropriate for fishkeeping.
All of this said, I remain bothered by the unsucessful effort with the virgin system mentioned in the first post (using R & R's standard of what constitutes success). Perhaps the degassing effect of that trickle tower was too limited due to size/volume? Don't know. I also wonder if the pond system cleansed with PP at the end of the prior season had become seeded with nitrogen-consuming heterotrophs (or maybe some nitrifiers) during the intervening period through natural processes, such that the difference in results reflects the difference in a truly virgin system and one that has simply lain fallow. Again, don't know.
When I first began growing bromeliads 30+ years ago, there was much backyard "science" on the creation of variegated plants. In one instance it was observed that if rusty roofing nails were placed in the lowermost leaf cups, in some plants irregular orangish stripes would appear in a few leaves. The observer described this as creating a variegated plant. When the nails were removed, the stripes disappeared... somewhat like injecting dye in a tropical fish. The facts observed were accurate, but the label applied to describe the observations was not in accordance with the common understanding of what constitutes variegation.
My current impression is that R & R may have come upon an alternative to Amquel. I do not think it is the equivalent to cycling a pond. However, that truly virgin system still bothers me.
auntiesue
06-07-2005, 02:10 PM
I think there are a number of factors that can be identified to theoretically explain R & R's results. The use of clay will capture some ammonia ions. The more used, the more captured. The organic additives will contribute to an environment more suitable for heterotrophic species that will consume some more. The use of trickle tower filtration will degas still more. None of these factors will lead to production of nitrate. An environment temporarily suitable for fish could be produced. Dealing with the level of nitrite would become an issue, as I do not believe it will degas or adsorb as readily as ammonia.
The degassing effect of trickle towers/showers can be very powerful. When Keirin Koi constructed a new pond at their facilities (last winter, I think it was), ammonia levels were unacceptable until huge Bakki Showers were made operational. Within 48 hours, ammonia was undetectable. There was no cycled filtration media and the pond was not considered suitable for normal stocking because there was no cycled filter. However, the ammonia readings were fine apparently due to degassing. The volume of the pond content being degassed per hour/minute would be a material factor.
Unicellular algae growth is another factor to consider. The posts are unclear whether the water took on a greenish tint. Unicellular algae prefer ammonia over other forms of nitrogen and can consume significant quantities.
All of these factors, and perhaps others, could contribute to the results recorded. This would not mean the pond is cycled. Ammonia digested by algae will be released when the algae dies. Ammonia adsorbed on the clay crystals may be released as pond water chemistry alters over time. Unless the nitrifier colonies have become established to deal with these eventualities, the risk to the fish is like a guillotine held by a fraying cord.
There are many interim steps that can be taken to control nitrogen until nitrifiers become established. The commercial ammonia binders are the common example used frequently. The establishment of a sustainable nitrogen digesting biota is the requirement for safe fishkeeping. I do not think the recorded results are consistent with such being accomplished. This is because readings of ammonia and nitrite were still being recorded. It is said these were at levels which the koi were able to survive, at least at times. However, the readings posted are not ones I would consider appropriate for fishkeeping.
All of this said, I remain bothered by the unsucessful effort with the virgin system mentioned in the first post (using R & R's standard of what constitutes success). Perhaps the degassing effect of that trickle tower was too limited due to size/volume? Don't know. I also wonder if the pond system cleansed with PP at the end of the prior season had become seeded with nitrogen-consuming heterotrophs (or maybe some nitrifiers) during the intervening period through natural processes, such that the difference in results reflects the difference in a truly virgin system and one that has simply lain fallow. Again, don't know.
When I first began growing bromeliads 30+ years ago, there was much backyard "science" on the creation of variegated plants. In one instance it was observed that if rusty roofing nails were placed in the lowermost leaf cups, in some plants irregular orangish stripes would appear in a few leaves. The observer described this as creating a variegated plant. When the nails were removed, the stripes disappeared... somewhat like injecting dye in a tropical fish. The facts observed were accurate, but the label applied to describe the observations was not in accordance with the common understanding of what constitutes variegation.
My current impression is that R & R may have come upon an alternative to Amquel. I do not think it is the equivalent to cycling a pond. However, that truly virgin system still bothers me.
I find this entire debate very interesting, but have a question regarding the comments above. Might be a bit off topic, so if it is, I can start another thread. If I read the above correctly, starting up a large bakki shower system on a virgin system (which I will have online hopefully very soon) may cause the new system to not cycle properly as noted in the example where Kerin Koi installed their systems. If this is true, then would it be better to allow my fluid bed to cycle before I bring the bakki towers online? Doing this will not allow the new pond to have the turnover expected or designed into the system, but it might be better in the long run to ensure the system is properly cycled.
Maybe a long chat with Steve (Kerin Koi) would be a good idea before I fire up this system.
Roddy Conrad
06-07-2005, 04:44 PM
"Question" in a post above, copied/pasted:
"All of this said, I remain bothered by the unsucessful effort with the virgin system mentioned in the first post (using R & R's standard of what constitutes success). Perhaps the degassing effect of that trickle tower was too limited due to size/volume? Don't know. I also wonder if the pond system cleansed with PP at the end of the prior season had become seeded with nitrogen-consuming heterotrophs (or maybe some nitrifiers) during the intervening period through natural processes, such that the difference in results reflects the difference in a truly virgin system and one that has simply lain fallow. Again, don't know."
That pond has 7 really lovely small koi bought from Brady Brandwood in late February when we came through Brady's farm on the way back from a week long cruise. Lizzie wanted to see these fish every day from the deck above that pond when I moved them outside this Spring. When a massive charge of Koi Clay is used for fast filter cycling, the water has LOTS of dirt stirring around, and the fish are not visible for quite some time. So I put only a very small charge of Koi Clay in that pond, and I assume that is why it took it longer to cycle than the "empty pond" where I dumped in two quart containers full of Koi Clay for a fast cycle time.
MikeM
06-07-2005, 06:27 PM
Roddy: interesting difference. (I totally agree with you as to Brady's Showa. :) )
AuntieSue: Do talk with Steve. I do not know how they loaded the pond involved timewise, etc. My guess is that in the degassing scenario the keys would be constancy and system loading. As long as degassing is continuous, a level of protection (a cushion) exists. The reduced ammonia supply might limit nitrifier establishment if the degassing was "too efficient" (?), but degassing is not 100%. JR points out above that too high a level of ammonia can be harmful to the nitrifiers. (Perhaps some degassing can actually promote the nitrifiers getting established?) I tend to think that as long as the system loading is low, things would progress in a normal fashion, but with lower peaks. You will recall that the typical curve is for nitrate to appear suddenly and in very little time afterward the "cycle" is working. This reflects the final stage nitrifiers slow establishment and reproduction rate. But, the reproduction rate is geometric. So, once a population is present sufficient to give detectable readings, the next generations are enormous increases. A more sensitive test kit might be necessary to track things if the loading was very low and feeding limited. The "new pond syndrome" bounces you hear about are often coincidental with temperature/weather changes, sudden increases in fish population, or sudden increases in feeding. There is a tendency once we think the cycle is complete to then add all the fish we have been wanting, or start feeding all the fish will eat. But the nitrifier population has to come into balance with the system in-puts. You will recall JR waxing eloquently about biofilm? (You gotta love somebody who has such depth of feeling for slime! :) ) That can be a year long process, depending on climate, etc. Until a healthy biofilm is in place, and the mature stage algae, etc., the system is very thinly supported by the nitrifiers. As it matures, the depth (both physical and diversity-wise) of the biota of a pond provides a great cushion against pondkeeper error and enthusiasm.
Anyway, rambling too much now. I'd be interested in what Steve says.
From New Scientist Magazine:
Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life
19:00 23 October 2003
NewScientist.com news service
Philip Cohen
Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown.
The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs.
These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane."
Inherit, mutate, evolve
The genesis of genetic material and the emergence of cell structure are hot areas of research, but until now the two had not connected. The birth of genetic material was clearly crucial for life to take on its unique abilities to inherit, mutate and evolve.
And membranes were key to the physiology of cells because they protect their contents, concentrate chemicals to promote reactions and isolate successful genes from unsuccessful ones. "It's clear you really need both these elements to get evolution off the ground and running," says Szostak.
Research has already shown that some of building blocks for RNA-like molecules and membranes are spontaneously created by chemical reactions in outer space and in conditions that may have existed on the primordial Earth. But how these subunits were then assembled is still debated.
For RNA, one popular theory revolves around the unusual properties of montmorillonite clay. The negatively charged layers of its crystals create a sandwich of positive charge between them. This turns out to be a highly attractive environment for RNA subunits to concentrate and join together into long chains.
100-fold acceleration
Szostak wondered whether montmorillonite could also help the assembly of vesicles from simple fatty acid precursors. He remembers the day his colleagues Hanczyc and Fujikawa ran into his office to show him their first results: the clay caused a 100-fold acceleration of vesicle formation.
"It was pretty amazing," he says. Once formed, the vesicles often incorporated bit of clay and were able to grow by absorbing more fatty acid subunits.
His team also showed the clay could hold RNA and form vesicles at the same time. Fluorescently-labelled RNA attached to the clay ended up assembled into vesicles after the reaction. And the researchers were able to get these "protocells" to divide by forcing them through small holes. This caused them to split into smaller vesicles, with minimal loss of their contents.
Szostak admits that in a natural setting the vesicles would rarely be forced to divide in this way. So now his group is searching for different mixtures of membrane-forming molecules that might divide spontaneously when they reach a certain size.
Journal reference: Science (vol 302, p 618 )
ShiroMujiGirl
06-08-2005, 02:22 AM
Heres the general trend of the blue hair koi world : Think outside the box, do research, notice something different from the "establishment" party line and dare to say so , and its Kill The Messenger. So... what else is new? Roark, I thought you were going to keep these things to yourself :D
ShiroMujiGirl
06-08-2005, 02:26 AM
Heres how to settle the degassing question. Run one system on a Bakki or high rate TT, run another on submerged media only. Whats the nitite level? Whats the nitrate level?
ShiroMujiGirl
06-08-2005, 02:45 AM
I have been reading this thread from back to front- most entertaining!
Buttermilk, sugar, baking soda huh....... I think I willl go make bisquits in the kitchen, next to the mangaese dioxide canister/ peroxide drip hyrdroxyl radical generator with resident goldfish looking on. Who needs biofilters anyway. Roark gave me that idea, by the way. But JR gave me all the ideas I use on my real koi ponds.
Roddy Conrad
06-08-2005, 06:10 AM
Let's see, if Koi Clay has been shown in Science magazine to accelerate the formation of one kind of growth 100 fold, it should not be so surprising for it to accelerate the formation of biofiltration bacteria 100 fold as well, right?
Hey, SMG, I thought my hair had turned white, but now that you mention it, there is some hint of blue in the white, so I guess you are talking about me again...as your usual JR supporting firm stance, or are you trying to straddle the fence since Roark is involved? Hey, I did the submerged versus shower filter test myself, published the results, JR wrote his usual diatribe about that, too. Submerged media took much longer to cycle and had extremely high nitrate levels at the end of the cycle. That proves nothing about direct degassing of ammonia, since many published scientific papers have documented the direct degassing of the biofiltration process to convert nitrite to nitrous oxide and nitric oxide which then degasses.
Graham
06-08-2005, 08:12 AM
Let's see, if Koi Clay has been shown in Science magazine to accelerate the formation of one kind of growth 100 fold, it should not be so surprising for it to accelerate the formation of biofiltration bacteria 100 fold as well, right?
Roddy isn't that a bit of a streach :eek: ...going from a research lab in a hosiptal looking for the beginnings of life, to you creating a primordial soup in your backyard. :rolleyes:
Graham
SMG, as regards this notion that playing with water by adding the OBVIOUS trace elements and nutrients to water to somehow 'super charge' reproduction rates- ( because that is really what we are talking about- replication), without consideration of initial cell count, species biochemistry and TEMPERATURE- is frankly not enlightened- it is just naive. The boys are confusing efficiency with replication.
When my 6 year old daughter ran into the house so excited because she had found an old coffee cup in the barn that had a ‘mountain’ of blue and green mold covering the coffee, I naturally pretended to share in her amazement! She though she had discovered something new and amazing, if not- and I quote “ yuckie!”, I responded the way I did with Roddy when he first discovered how quickly ammonia levels can drop in water. I then gently tried to explain what he might have seen is actually something else. Peach couldn’t take it and has since felt we were debating this subject. I have played with R&R for fun and amusement and I hope the brighter bulbs reading all this have figured out that there are other factors at work here. I don’t know exactly the combination. But very likely a combination of degassing, binding and heterotrophic activity. Certainly the R&R research all comes down to a misinterpretation of the readings based on ignorance of the biological and microbial world. Because a completely functional biofilm of perhaps 10 million individual, two stage, sequential species cells from a virgin/non seeded body of water in 24 hours, at any temperature no less, is not physically possible. This is a ‘little more’ complex that removing stains from jeans! ;)
The only way I knew to teach my daughter about mold or to help R&R with their confusions, was to gently ask certain leading questions so that they could figure it out themselves and keep egos in tack. R&R missed that opportunity, the egos couldn’t handle even the inferences. My daughter was smarter. She grew mold on bread and my left over coffee for a week or two! My hypothesis– girls are ‘more free’ to find the truths in life, than boys. But then again, you already knew that! ;)
JR
You know there is a much more interesting and more practical topic regarding biofilm than whether one can create an over night miracle or one subscribes to the orthodox time frame? After all the creation of biofilm and it the initial cycling is cake, like falling off a log! It will happen if some basic parameters are in place.
What is of much greater importance is HOW you bring along the filter’s growth in cadence with the WAY you stock your pond . Now THAT has some real consequences to the health of your fish.
In my opinion, the very best way is to begin with a large pond and a vert well seeded biofilter. If the pond is large enough and the fish are few or small enough, the ammonia readings will not be measurable. Same for the nitrite. The reasons for this are many:
1) dilution factor- the ammonia produced is lost in the volume of water
2) large surface- excellent gas exchange
3) the biofilm is small but it can easily get into equilibrium. Further, the nitrite oxidizers are not suppressed by the ammonia levels typical in a crowded system.
4) algae will aid water quality without growing out of control- green algae will over take brown or golden algae along the way.
You see, biofilm will first establish a certain number of individual cells that grow larger to accommodate the ammonia levels. From there, the numbers of individual cells will only increase as needed to meet the new higher amounts/sources of ammonia. This is usually a three day process at 74 F.
So ideally, you would buy a new fish or two, per weekend through the ‘stocking season’. If you quarantine your koi, you would move the some of the media out first, give it three days to adjust and then bring your fish out, two at a time over a several week period. If you do this, you will never experience an ammonia surge and avoid a lot of stress to the koi in the process.
The second best thing to do would be to move the entire indoor filter system and all the fish, but not feed then for a week or so. And probably not for two days before the move.
The only complication here is that quarantine should be between the purchase and the introduction.
In my case, I open a circulation loop from the quarantine to the main pond. The indoor fish are instantly ‘ in the outdoor pond’ once the circulation includes all the water outside and all the water inside. The same filter is functioning , the same way, as before only now it is managing 10,000 gallons plus rather than 2,000 gallons plus- but the same number fish, of course. Slowing over a few days/weeks time, the fish are moved out until the Qtank is empty of fish and that portion of the circualtion loop is cut off again. Now the filters are only connected to the outdoor 7500 gallons. Kinda neat !
JR
Koi Story
06-08-2005, 12:10 PM
From:
Joe Lewis. Science teacher, and PIMMS fellow. Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/
Pond Ecology
This curriculum unit is designed to be used with fifth grade students. It is particularly designed to provide students with “hands-on” scientific activities in order to reinforce all the concepts presented throughout the unit. Secondly, it provides the students with the basic knowledge needed in order to design their own scientific investigations.
Pond Ecology takes into account one aspect of planet—ponds. Through experiments, readings and discussions, the students will learn to look critically at ecosystems, and ecology especially as they relate to ponds.
Since one of my goals in this unit is to encourage students to perform and design their own experiment, I feel that it is necessary to include a summary of the proper method of writing a scientific investigation. Therefore I will list and briefly explain the five basic steps of the scientific method.
II. The Scientific Method
In order to prepare students to eventually design their own experiment, the instructor should insist on having their students write up their scientific investigations using the proper method. Since one of my goals is to heighten students interest in science, I feel that it is necessary to include this small segment explaining the scientific method so that you can show your students how scientists work.
The first step of the scientific method is to come up with a good title for the experiment. Titles are often stated in the form of a question. Just from reading the title, anyone should automatically know the problem that a child is trying to solve in their experiment. For example: “What Effect Does Temperature Have on the Respiration Rate of a Fish”. From the title we know that the student is trying to find out if the temperature of water changes the rate at which a fish breathes.
Thinking scientifically, the student should try to find possible solutions the problem through researching information about the problem he is trying to solve. The information that he finds should aid the child in forming an hypothesis during the third stage of the scientific method, and help the child in writing the introduction.
The second stage of the scientific method should be titled the introduction. The student, in paragraph format, should briefly write some sort of introductory statement which addresses such questions as, why he chose to do the particular experiment and why is it worth spending time on. The child should also include some background information about how the fish breathes or how they react in warm verses cold water, or how they are cold-blooded animals, etc....
The third step of the scientific method requires the child making an educated guess about what he is experimenting on. The educated guess is called an hypothesis. Using the previous example, a typical hypothesis for this experiment would be: As the temperature of the water increases, the fish respiration rate would increase also.
In the fourth step called the procedure, have the student to list the material that is needed to do the experiment as well as provide the basic details as to how the experiment will be performed. This should be a detailed description and a step by step procedure of how the student could test his problem. Anyone reading the experiment should be able to collect the materials needed to perform the investigation and duplicate the experiment by reading the procedures.
The fifth step called observations. The student records any pertinent information about their findings while performing the experiment. Whenever possible the student should use charts, graphs, tables or pictures to depict information.
The final step of the scientific method is the conclusion. Here the student analyzes the data the he has placed in his observations and formulates a conclusion. This section is also be done in a paragraph format. The student should also state whether or not his hypothesis was correct.
Keep in mind that in order for the student to fully understand how this method is employed, the instructor must walk the child through a sample experiment explaining how each step is done. It is also important the student realizes that once the hypothesis is made it should not be changed during the experiment. Remember that it is only a guess as to the outcome of the experiment, the important thing is that the conclusion at the end is correct. The conclusion either proves or disproves the hypothesis.
During any experiment or scientific research the teacher should constantly encourage students to ask questions, reach an educated guess, and to design some type of experiment to figure out if their hypothesis is correct.
760 words
Roddy Conrad
06-08-2005, 05:13 PM
Again, JR thinks by talking the longest, he somehow wins the debate. I don't think so, the normal person is not so dumb they think just because something is said over and over it must be true. It just means that person is consistent in their errors of thinking.
The point has been made quite well that there are some good short cuts and lessons to be learned in biofilter cycling, design, and maintenance.
The first lesson is don't believe the sales force that are selling high priced filters as the "best there is". The best biofilters are still homemade, no merchant has an interest in selling them, the profit margin isn't there.
The second lesson is to put some well chosen biomedia in the air with water running over it if you want the best biofilter design. How you hide it from view, or whether you like it in your view, that is your desision based on aesthetics. If you don't want this type of filter design, please plan on reduced biofiltration efficiency, long cycle times, and poorer water quality in terms of nitrate and nitrite levels, and perhaps ammonia levels.
The third lesson is if you have serious nitrite problems, add a significant overcharge of Koi Clay to your pond and filter system. That seems to work wonders for lots of folks. The Koi Clay also helps ammonia cycle times on virgin filters, no one knows why for sure.
The fourth lesson is the biofilter requires a significant amount of alkalinity to work properly, and more alkalinity makes the biofilter work even better. The biofilter CONSUMES alkalinity, at the rate of a half pound of baking soda per pound of koi pellet feed, so do NOT assume the pond water will stay balanced without checking on it and adjustments.
The fifth lesson is that the R&R team doesn't care for JR and his attitudes, and the feeling is reciprocated. Hard to miss that lesson in this thread or hundreds of other ponding hobby discussion board threads! Talk about a caste system!
Roddy, HOW can you say I don't like you! I'm quite fond of you--- In fact in the sharing of some of your theories, you make my day! ;) JR
telling my favorite story--
the Italian Scientist wishes to learn more about his lab frog- he makes careful notes throughout the test----
Hour one: I place-ada the froga-ada on the lab counter. I take off the left front'a leg'a of the frog'a
I say " froga, Jumpa'a frog'a! Jumpa!" The frog she jumpa but not'a good as before'a?
Hour six: I remove'a the other leg'a from'a the front'a of the little frog'a. I say to the froga- " jumpa Froga, jumpa!" The frog she no jumpa so good now?
Hour twelve: I remove'a the left hind'a lega of the little frog'a. I say'a " frog'a jumpa! Jump'a little frog'a!" The frog'a jumpa very badly!
Hour eighteen: I remove'a the last little frog'a leg'a. I say " jumpa little froga , jumpa!" The frog'a , she no jumpa at all'a??? I scream " Frog'a jumpa!" The frog'a, she no jump'a.
Some time later, after several more hours of begging the frog to jump and observing the lack of reaction, the scientist carefully writes in his journal------
The conclusion- when'a you cut off'a the legs of'a frog'a, She goes'a deaf'a . ;)
Does this remind you'll of a certain 'other 24 hour' experiment? ;) JR
DarleneD
06-08-2005, 06:30 PM
You guys lost me 3 pages ago. But here's a question for you ... I've had my pond and filter down for a couple of weeks, the filter has been cleaned, as well as the pond. Filter media was about dead so it is being replaced. Most if not all biobugs are gone, right. I will be introducing 7 fish into the pond on Tuesday. Of course I will be watching the water, and using an ammonia binder as appropriate, along with ST. What one "thing" would Roark and or Roddy recommend that I put into the pond, and how much? My pond is 850 gallons with a submersible filter, waterfall, and tons of aeration. Should I use ammonia over the weekend? And what's that I read about buttermilk???
Roddy Conrad
06-08-2005, 06:59 PM
Forget the buttermilk, that was a recipe 5 years ago that cycles filters fast but makes the water toxic to the fish without a complete water exchange.
The one thing you might add would be Koi Clay or other bentonite clay brands.
Don't add the ammonia if you have a deadline right away to add fish. If the ammonia is not converted, and is there when the fish are added, it may cause harm to the fish.
And leave some of that old filter media in the system to seed new growth.
Graham
06-08-2005, 07:00 PM
Come'on Roddy half of what you just posted is complete bullshet and the rest is medicore at best
Again, JR thinks by talking the longest, he somehow wins the debate. I don't think so, the normal person is not so dumb they think just because something is said over and over it must be true. It just means that person is consistent in their errors of thinking.
The average person on here is a lot smarter than you think...they know the difference between researched science and ''oh look at the result I got, but I haven't a clue why''. Your error is thinking this has something to do with nitrifying bacteria
The point has been made quite well that there are some good short cuts and lessons to be learned in biofilter cycling, design, and maintenance.
No, there are short cuts to getting rid of ammonia...this has nothing to do with ''cycling''
The first lesson is don't believe the sales force that are selling high priced filters as the "best there is". The best biofilters are still homemade, no merchant has an interest in selling them, the profit margin isn't there.
The 1st part of that statement is true and the second part crap
The second lesson is to put some well chosen biomedia in the air with water running over it if you want the best biofilter design. How you hide it from view, or whether you like it in your view, that is your desision based on aesthetics. If you don't want this type of filter design, please plan on reduced biofiltration efficiency, long cycle times, and poorer water quality in terms of nitrate and nitrite levels, and perhaps ammonia levels.
BS and I don't mean baking soda..all kinds of bio-media and filter designs work very well and as long as they are not overloaded with bio-load they work just fine
The third lesson is if you have serious nitrite problems, add a significant overcharge of Koi Clay to your pond and filter system. That seems to work wonders for lots of folks. The Koi Clay also helps ammonia cycle times on virgin filters, no one knows why for sure.
This whole statement is crap and is not reproduceable by most ponders. Even in your own words the clay and nitrite thing isn't reliable so don't tell people to do it!
The fourth lesson is the biofilter requires a significant amount of alkalinity to work properly, and more alkalinity makes the biofilter work even better.
Agree, but having said that nitrification still goes on in low pH water
The biofilter CONSUMES alkalinity, at the rate of a half pound of baking soda per pound of koi pellet feed, so do NOT assume the pond water will stay balanced without checking on it and adjustments.
**** I don't dump a truck load of BS into the pond and I've always been accused of over feeding...don't make catch all statements based on what happens in your pond
The fifth lesson is that the R&R team doesn't care for JR and his attitudes, and the feeling is reciprocated. Hard to miss that lesson in this thread or hundreds of other ponding hobby discussion board threads! Talk about a caste system!
Roddy you're ponding practises are, generally speaking, dangerous for the average person out there...
DarleneD
06-08-2005, 07:54 PM
Koi clay and filter seeding are givens, but not sure the biobugs have survived.
Graham, I would have written those same words almost identically. I know this is going to just sound pompous to the R&R research team, but guys like you, myself, Mike M, Brett ( if he had no political problems) would all agree there is some other explanation for a 24 hour clearing of ammonia. And it would be odd indeed if nitrite levels were high after 24 hours. So we are talking here about ammonia reduction over a 24 hours. If the lurkers check the chart I gave in post # 70 ( page 7) you will see the normal appearance of nitrite. I think koiinaround posted a more simple chart showing the same intervals- 6 days.
Now love muffin Roddy has said, over and over that my long posting over and over of the same SCIENCE does not make it true! But what I’m posting, over and over is THE body of information from the centers of research involving these subjects. I would not , as a lowly stock broker, challenge the beliefs of M.I.T. professors regarding chemical engineering? Why would a gasoline production scientist challenge the body of work of the microbiology scientists and marine biologists of the world? What Roddy is posting is a cause and effect, over and over again- it certainly does not make his conclusions correct! Especially since he does not understand the species he is attempting to study- only the measurements on a test kit he is reading.
So enough of Roddy and his complexes, suffice it to say that all disciplines that work with nitrifiers in the accepted accredited science community believe that the establishment of a nitrification cycle is not a one day affair in a virgin system. As for Roark, I can only say, he has lost his way on this one. Thinking that no reading of ammonia and nitrite are the same no matter how you get there, shows a profound lack of understanding of the consequences of a false cycle.
So enough of odd theories and dumbed down experiments. Lets get back to actual established facts.
JR
MikeM
06-08-2005, 09:33 PM
Darlene: In your situation I would suggest you do something very different than this thread suggests (without regard to the "side" taken). Get hold of folks in the Tampa club. I am sure someone reliably KHV-free will have some mature media to trade for new, or extra to give. A single filter mat from an established pond will do wonders. Or, if someone has sponge in their filter system, wring out all the brown sediment you can and pour it into your filter/pond. You have 6 or 7 days to get something going. This will help a great deal. Add a couple of feeder goldfish if you like and give back to the pet shop when the koi arrive. Do not feed at first and increase feed very gradually.
Up North they have all sorts of filter maturation issues with the coming of Summer. Here in Florida, with daytime highs in the 90sF, and water temps well into 70sF, nitrifiers are thriving everywhere. There are lots of folks who would be happy to give some away! :) (The dealer from whom you are acquiring the koi probably could help you out.) Far better than any bugs in a bottle, or any formula for getting the nitrifiers to colonize, add the real thing from the start.
......P.S., Enjoy your fish.
Roark
06-08-2005, 10:11 PM
As for Roark, I can only say, he has lost his way on this one. Thinking that no reading of ammonia and nitrite are the same no matter how you get there, shows a profound lack of understanding of the consequences of a false cycle.
Perhaps. :) But then again JR, you've said that before.
I did here what I always do. I put aside my polished tomes, got my hands dirty, and published OBSERVATIONS which JR says are complete bunk. And, as I always do, I put my money where my mouth is and... predictably JR chickened-out. :)
It's instructive to see this game has been played-out before with the same players. JR did the same thing when I went public with a certain gill bug (now known as KHV) 5 years ago. I reported my observations, and JR screamed loudly and bunked it with his infamous textbooks and jeering prose. Eventually the "Four Horsemen Of The Apocolyse" (JR coined that phrase) published the FIRST bit of info on what is now called KHV. And man, did we take a drubbing over that paper. At that time there were exactly FOUR people in the world willing to stand-up and be counted. We'd seen fish dying locally in droves from a new disease ("Impossible" said JR). Those four brave souls were: Roddy, Spike Cover, Duncan Griffiths, and myself. The book-smart "experts" howled and jeered and called us every name in the book but we stuck to our guns. Some of these howlings even made it into print in NI Magazine. It polarized the hobby... but at least we got the word out while JR and Company were actively trying to suppress it.
Once the "mythical" (JR again) bug was firmly proven to exist by the guys in the white lab coats, the landscape changed dramatically. JR suddenly had a change of heart. Those "undiagnosed costia infections" (direct quote) and "Poor pond-keeping" (direct quote) and "Chicken-little syndrome" (direct quote) were all set-aside and JR now recalls his participation as being "the voice of reason" (Recent JR quote). Most amusingly, JR now considers himself an expert on a disease he clearly stated "does not exist" and was a "figment of Roark's imagination". Roark... who was "strapped by a fundamental inability to do basic science" (JR again) wasn't so nutsoid after all. :) And every single one of the predictions we made (global scope, banning of Japanese-style shows, etc) came to pass. Even the beloved luminaries in Japan finally got hit. Biocontainment, specifically because of the KHV threat is now the norm.
History repeats.
With KHV, I offered to SHOW HIM. And when I did this he suddenly had "other things" that were more pressing. No dirty hands for JR. :) Today, with BlammoBacter (call me silly, but I like the name, and if I'm gonna get jeered, lets make it FUN!!!) I offered to show him again... and again got the same result. JR muttered something about Texas, guns, distance, birthday party... whatever. All expense paid road trips just don't amount to "proof" when it means he might miss a meal or something. Instead, the experiment gets labeled "stupid". What JR really wants is benchracing, lots of it, ala KHV, instead of seeing it for himself. Truth exists only on paper for JR.
So... dunno. Don't care. JR is having fun, and the recorder is running again. I'm bright enough to know there is still something going-on... and it may not be in JR's textbooks. No matter. Neither was KHV... but it sure as heck is in JR's NEW set of textbooks... and he now considers himself a bit of an expert on the bug. LMAO!!!
The beauty of this discussion is this... and I don't think JR sees it coming... or if he does, he's been uncommonly wise and crazy like a fox. Here it is kiddies, so pay attention.
The wilder the theories are that Roddy produces, and the more times Roddy baits JR, the more JR writes, and the louder he bangs his Anti-Roddy drum. It gets the word out. Same as with KHV. :)
The audience is listening. Look at the number of views on this thread. :)
As a final notion, please go read the piece on "Viral Gill Disease" on Click2roark. It's STILL up there from 5 years ago. That piece was published all over the world, much to JR's eternal chagrin and embarrassment long before it was "approved" to believe in KHV. That paper was a compendium of OBSERVATIONS and even included a prototype treatment. Today, half of that treatment survives as the workaday "fix". And so do JR's comments and pontifications to the contrary.
See ya. :)
Roark
OK Roark, gloves off---
First of all, the tactic to switch subjects is weak but I'll play. Prepare for the spanking fo your life-
Roark, you lump me in with a group that denied the disease existed. I, long ago, said that a virus likely existed because it was first ID'ed here in the Northeast Einstein! In Long Island, at one of OUR MAKC chapter koi shows. What I did say, and still say , is that more fish die every day from common ailments than all the KHV in the country combined. YOU, on the other hand didn’t have a clue of KHV until it hit Southern California a year later. And THEN, get this folks, suggested you were working on a CURE!! In your yard with Chloromine T and PP!!!! How we howled at that one! How is that cure going by the way?
Secondly, I will ask anyone who has the position I took on NI early on in writing, where I talked about SVC , the virus that hit the All Japan show in 1995 and all the other posts, to step forward and help me here. I’ll try and dig up same. Roark conveniently forgets the classic arguments I had with Waddington on this subject. Especially regarding the diseases in Japan an Taiwan in 1995. I also was in early contact with Dr Rubin of Orlando regarding herpes disease in angelfish, catfish and plecos. So you can try and twist my words and some isolated posts but anyone around at the time knows 1) I kept an open mind and 2) I constantly reinforced the point that energy was better spent saving the thousands of koi that die in ponds from parasites, infections and neglect than from a relatively obscure virus of the time.
Lastly, I was at the early meetings 10 months after the So Cal problems, working with the ZNA chapters on a plan of attack including education, contact of politicians and fund raising for test projects- so check your facts mate before you try and destroy someone’s reputation. My first donation was made to Ron Goforth in 1999, wanta see the check? Want to call Ron G?
And now you sneaky snake, Here is the reason I am really spanking you. You took trusted private information and now your trying to cash in on it---------------------
YOU know I contacted you privately, thanked you respectfully for the offer to get me out there, but due to my wife’s deteriorating health condition, I told you I was, unfortunately, grounded. You now attempt to make me look like I’m chickening out and ducking you ? That is low. Some of us make vows to our wives we keep, get it? It’s the same reason I had to pass on the Dallas show and the AKCA seminar in a few weeks, which I never miss. But then again you knew that, as I told you in a private email. This is about as low a tactic as I’ve seen anyone pull on me in one of these debates in the past 7 years- did lady Mac Beth put you up to this one? Even Roddy , with all our history, would never think about doing this to me in a public forum. I’ll stop going on this one before I say something we will both regret.
Now, back on topic. You are referring to the opinions of Lansing, Waddington and Caddock. And you are attempting to lump me in with these guys, because they are friends and we usually supported one another in those days, even though my opinion was one of skepticism as far as predicting the sky was falling in 1998? THE death and photos of tonnage of dead fish in Israel was proof positive back in 1999- don’t you think? Do you think I’m stupid? I always left the door open and never jumped on the ‘costia explanation’ although I found it interesting that the two conditions , KHV and costia , were often mis diagnosed,. Or one was confused for the other as they were often both present. One being common and the other rare.
In 2004-05, I have donated much free time to forming and staffing KHV action committees, soliciting scientists and fish health professions for a National effort, raising funds and reviewing research proposals for KHV. Pretty odd for a guy who doesn’t believe in KHV??
And what pray tell have you done- o wait— squat. O wait again, you are researching a cure with chloramine T- sorry.
The point here is I have moved forward, educated myself further and taken action to replace words with deeds. You? As usual, comments from the peanut gallery, nothing more. O wait, the cure with chloramine T and PP, sorry again!
JR
Roark
06-08-2005, 11:25 PM
Touched a nerve there, eh? (GIGGLE!!!) But don't let your blood-pressure rise too much. It was all just costia you know it. :) Really-really. :)
Keep posting your tomes, o Great Revisionist. :) Tell me again thy great deeds and sufferage performed for this noble hobby. Interesting stuff. Really.
Nighterz, JR. :) Sweet dreams. :)
Roark
Giggle? what , Lady Mac Beth now pulling all your strings? JR
L5Vegan
06-09-2005, 12:29 AM
Ok fellas
I have a brand new set of tanks for holding or qting. I will volunteer my neutral (mostly) siding here and run this test here providing daily updates. I do not want to interfere with the Texas Testing so if you all would like this I will do it. If not we will see it in Texas.
If wanted here is what I will propose
I will build the filtration to Roddy and Roarks specs
I will add the appropriate amount of suggested spices as directed by Roddy and Roark.
I will add fish at the suggested or appropriate time.
I will take tests as proposed by Jr. At the instructed time intervals as well as provide any data requested to decide whether or not the filter has actually cycled.
What do you think?
Sheb,
I think that your generous offer is a great idea.
I really just want to see the CFU counts without having to fund the tests by myself. :yes:
Dan
Here's a sincere question for the R&R team--
If a koi show were to set up their koi tanks on say, Thursday before the show and Roddy or Roark were to come up and add the powders to the water, will the tanks then be able to be stocked on Saturday morning ( 36 hours later) and no ammonia would be measurable for the rest of the weekend? No more binders or water changes needed- just the BS and clay/ trace elements/salts etc. Tempting.
I guess what I'm asking is -- are the R&R research team ready to take on show tanks with 24 hour seeding? I have seen plastic creates with lava rock in them that could be used as a corner TT in the rear section of the show tank- stacked so that they are out of the water, each with a simple recirculating pump.
Dr Peach, what do you think? Will it work? JR
Roark
06-09-2005, 02:37 AM
JR: We tried that approach once, remember? And you called it "stupid", etc. Go back and read your own posts. Your thoughts on demonstrative evidence are very clear.
The bottom line is you've already made-up your mind. And on the slimmest possible chance that someone were to manage to "prove" it to everybody else around you, you've already got your little books which will show conclusively that it wasn't "proper" science and any and all results are therefore invalid. Or you'd claim "foul" or cheating because The Books say it can't happen. Then there is the "definitional dodge" ("... I did not have SEX with that woman..." ref: Clinton) that is equally effective. Then, if the evidence became too overwhelming and it was clear that you'd been wrong, you'd claim you never doubted it one bit... and in fact you'd hint you actually invented it 10 years ago. Then you could throw-in that bit about Lansing, Craddock, Waddington, etc as being the real culprits, about you being the persistent "voice of reason", etc.
Oh wait. Are we talking KHV or BlammoBacter? No matter. Same thing. Only the names have been changed. :)
This thread has drawn in excess of 4000 views. It's been copied and archived. Your comments about actually demonstrating this "stupid" experiment are clear and a matter of record. "I'm sorry... its just stupid". (That's a quote from JR). Besides, you said yourself that it would take 21 days to get any results. Go look it up.
BTW JR: I want to set the record perfectly straight about your digs on Tom Lansing and Nigel Craddock. Tom was vastly different from what you painted him as being in your post above. In fact, so was Nigel Craddock. Using these two as scapegoats for the suppression of critical KHV information in the early days is utterly absurd. Nigel was a complete gentleman during the Great KHV Wars. In fact, I've never known Nigel to be anything but. He wanted nothing more than to run a magazine. Period. And it was Tom Lansing's counsel that KHV might exist, likely did, and if it wasn't what *I* thought it was... then something ELSE was sure killing a bunch of non-mythical fish... and that open minds were in fact a good thing. Tom wrote me with encouragement privately and even offered me some good historical reading on epidemics in general along with the name of a guy in academia that I should talk to. Tom was INTERESTED in the subject. Tom was the guy who would overnight meds at no charge to anybody who asked for help. Tom and Nigel absolutely cared. I've still got a bunch of private emails from both these folks reflecting exactly this. And lest we forget Waddy... the Koiphen readership needs to understand that Peter Waddington doesn't cut it as a goat for JR either. Peter was skeptical in the extreme *publically* about KHV, but privately was trying to learn what the disease was, how it travelled, and what it might mean to his business. Peter isn't an idiot... he's a businessman and was looking to others (like Mr. Textbook, JR) for guidance as to how worried he should be. JR was the sole party making jabs, pontificiations, and flat-out, no-holds-barred denials and catcalls from the ivory towers. Then, as now, JR called our efforts "stupid"... even though 1 of the 3 treatments we tried (not *recommended* mind you... but *tried* and *documented*, ie, heat), turned-out to be BANG-ON. Since JR doesn't recall any of this, maybe he should post this on N.I and see what THEY say.
JR. the historical voice of reason you are not... nor have you been in this discussion either. For you to come back now and FINALLY say "Well Roark, since you've beat me down, now I DO want to try it" is beyond disgusting. It CANT work, JR. So why trouble yourself?
My suggestion is to ask Roddy (remember him? He's the guy you've labeled "Dr. Peach", or on N.I, the man you have labelled "PHDI", for "PHD Idiot", or the "Kitty Litter King", or any of a dozen other slurs you've created about the poor man). Ask Roddy about whatever current method he is using. He has far more patience for shameless Revisionists than I do. In fact, he's willing to do just about anything if he thinks somebody might learn something from it.
I'm done with ya, JR. :) But do feel free to prattle-on.
My thanks to Stephen for letting this thread continue even when it tottered on the verge of tastelessless. When elephants mate, it takes a lot of crashing and banging... and for that I'm sorry. :) Hopefully somebody got something out of it besides a headache and space-bar thumbs!
Roark
---and here folks is a study in a wrestling move known as the duck and slip. Lets look the tactics over;
1) change the subject in an effort to get away from the facts surrounding the original subject.
2) fill the air with invectives to distract and play to the audience.
3) really avoid the facts!
4) and finally when put back onto the subject, fain insult and disgust and RUN AWAY to hide under lady Mac Beth’s skirt! You're done with me??? You ran around the ring covering your head for the last 9 rounds! I feel so lucky you spared me!!! LOL
I’ll be very happy to start ANOTHER thread regarding the KHV subject, but I will not fall prey to a lame attempts at bait and switch. And before you crawl away as the wounded dove, I want to set the series of events right as this hissy fit of yours looks like you are shutting down.
When I was minding my OWN business and you and Dr Peach called me out with three or four well placed comments and pejoratives, I entered this thread for the first time. I politely asked you and the good Doctor four questions. Questions, You both ignored and ducked for the next 14 pages of posts! As you felt cornered, you twisted, acted snide and tried ever trick in teenager’s hand book. You forget I’m raising a teenager! By the way, am I to take it you were baiting me to help pay me back for Roddy’s rough treatment? Roddy’s a big boy, he can defend himself- and after all he has Lizzie! The ultimate secret weapon! ( I like that lady!!)
So in the end, you couldn’t stand the heat in the kitchen Roark. You could have simply said ‘No mas’ and I would have let you out of this corner you put yourself in, gracefully. Even after the original comments and even after your ‘weasel’ use of the information about my wife for your own ends. I mean that, there would have been no hard feels. Just a little rough housing between the guys.
As for the actual SUBJECT, it was fun and interesting and I hope the lurkers got something out of it. The biofilter is the heart and soul of the pond, the engine and the motor. Without it, the koi won’t last a week- or in some cases, a day. So a lot of care needs to go into setting it up and bringing it along as you initially stock your pond. The right container, the right media, the right circulation and the right maintenance. This is part of the fun of the hobby and part of the challenge. I sincerely hope those experienced hobbyists reading this, have been able to expand their ‘understanding’ of the cycle as well. Its about a philosophy as much as the science.
JR
Little known facts---
By the way, rumor has it that JR invented KHV and was the sole importer of the virus into the USA in the early 1990s. His plan was to wipe out all koi worldwide by placing an Israeli carrier in every pond containing Japanese or domestic fish. He would then cash in his Israeli stocks and bonds! That rascal stock broker! True! Check it out! ;) JR
O, and he kicks puppies too!
You confirmed all my suspicions! ;)
Koin-Onia
06-09-2005, 11:47 AM
I have been keeping up with this thread and it has been a most informative when information has been posted and kinda like the Holyfield - Tyson fight otherwise. I have also tried to contribute to thread and recieved a response from only one side so I guess that there just might be a Caste system, maybe I did not meet someones requirements when I offered to do this test unbiased.
I am open minded and not foolish when it comes to new ideas. I am going to make this statement if I see this in person in Texas then I will be a person that will say wow this really worked and tell people about it. Jr I have no idea on your history with Roark or Roddy for that matter and your book knowledge and ability to pull information that is good and post is unsurpassed. PAUSE ......
I would also like to tell you I will say a prayer for you and your wife as that is much more important than any of this.
But what if it works, just maybe it will. If ole Ben did not fly that kite or the Wright bros did not fly that plane (Roark would not have been able to buy you a ticket :D: )
Here is something that I will say as well I give Roddy and Roark kudos for trying and running tests it is this type of hands on research that makes things happen.
Have you guys ever thought of Working together imagine what you all could accomplish!
Hi koin , no I didn't slight you, I just had my hands full dealing with trying to get some actual science out of my two opponents on the other side of the debate!
I’d be interested in your results and more interested in your conclusions.
I will also run my own set of tests this weekend, if I can get all materials together by then?
My theory is that the majority of ammonia added to a bacteria free ( virgin) system in the first 24 hours will be either bound by the chemicals I add, and/or partly degassed and absorbed by fresh lava rock in a trickle tower.
I will attempt to discover if , in inorganic form, ammonia is converted to un-ionized ammonia based on the addition of items like baking soda and calcium clay. One system ( #1 or main) will run with a trickle tower and the other( #2 or alternate ) without, so that we can get a sense of degassing power of TTs in this experiment.
The levels of ammonia will be plotted on a graph in 12 hour intervals over a 96 hour period. The temperature will be held constant at 24 C ( 75 F). A second experiment will be run later at 20 C ( 68 F ) to see if bacteria proliferation, if any, is effected.
I will gather together, over the next two days, all the chemicals posted by Roddy in this thread.
Hopefully he will advise us as to the details?
Independently, I will run a classic seeded cycle as a control, should the main experiment actually show considerable microbial activity. This activity in the experimental vats, by the way, will be tested by doing daily BOD tests on water samples from all three vats. If aerobic bacteria are present, we should see a drop in O2 levels in the sealed vessels held over night in a darkened cabinet in hours six, twelve, and eighteen according to Roddy’s findings.
I will go over all the test equipment including photos of course, here once I have things set up. This should be fun and very educational! We can compare notes as we go along ;) JR
Roddy Conrad
06-09-2005, 06:05 PM
I am waiting for the dust to settle, and tempers to cool, before taking up any offers of independent testing from anyone. The last independent test I accepted to sponsor turned out very poorly, with poor communication about essential details, and was, In My Opinion, ruined through lack of adequate continuing communication. So I am terribly particular about any testing that claims to be connected to my name or my suggested conditions in terms of who is doing it, how they are doing it, and how competent they are to "get it right". I can get the results I describe, but have been testing and learning "out of my pocket expenses" for many years now applying research techniques to back yard ponding. I do have much to teach, but it is awfully hard to teach it when JR claims I am incompetent, and only the lowly lab tech can do science, and science can only can be done by reading books, it is not alive, no one is doing it anymore, my patents shouldn't have been granted, since JR says I can't do competent research. It gets very old when he does it year after year, nasty name after nasty name, etc.
I may choose to write up a more detailed description of needed detail to get fast cycling publically, but nothing I write in the current message board atmosphere will lead anyone to better ponding through chemistry (or any other science).
Just for the record, "Roark" writes an accurate record of many of JR's rants and opinions that have led to a poorer overall Koi hobby for lots of folks, in particular the thousands of koi ponders with complete KHV wipeouts.
I do hope the health of JR's wife improves. But if we want to talk about family problems, I could write several thick factual books describing many years of my personal family history that would make most of you wonder how I am still sane and on this good Earth. But I don't use those family problems as excuses for anything I may have messed up in the world of the koi hobby. Neither do I use those family problems to excuse myself from performing in the world of chemical research. Okay, I did say I had pnemonia for a month this winter, to explain why I was writing on message boards instead of at work. But pnemonia for a month at age 64 is a small health problem, not a family issue.
Well, I see I am getting carried away, too, by the emotions of the day.
I will present a nice seminar at the 2006 AKCA seminar on a variety of subjects, including the fundamentals of pond biofiltration. There perhaps I will be able finally to present some good ponding technology advice without JR's continual rants of "it just isn't so, I didn't think it up". In research circles, that has a name, the NIH factor. NIH means Not Invented Here, and if the NIH factor is in effect, there is no support from the groups not involved in the research. Well, the NIH factor is alive and well at JR's house, and, as Roark demonstrated, he has no interest in seeing the data live for himself.
Can we just choose to close this thread? I think it has run its course, and after a month or so of letting tempers cool, maybe we could try again on this general subject?
Well actually Roddy, now that all the 'stuff' is out of the way, we can actually get something done , don't you think? I think it will be very educational for the group and that is all that should matter.
so I am testing the flip side of your theory. Namely that something else is at work other than nitrifying bacteria in 24 hours in a non seeded virgin environment. This could actually help you better understand your experiments.
There are so many possibilities here- for instance, nitrate levels in tap water may be being reduced back to nitrite by heterotrophic species ( buttermilk fermenation/ denitrification). The disappearence of ammonia is an easy one but it must be tested out to see 'who and how' it drops in 24 hours. I suspect binding and degassing. Of course I could be wrong but the tests will tell. On the 'other end' we could be seeing fermentation or denitrification producing low levels of nitrite. It is pretty interesting.
I don't get the point about the NIH factor even though I read it twice? Maybe you could explain that one better to me- it seems to be going over my head.
So I have ordered four identical pumps this evening from Marine warehouse. They each turn over 250 gallons per hour. I have three small trickle towers and I need to get a few more of the large blue hydro tubs that are used for very large koi- about 80 gallons I would guess?
I would suggest setting up these identical systems out of sunlight as algae would only complicate the dynamics we are trying to observe.
Now stop picking one me Dr Peach ! YOU know how delicate I am! Now Lets get busy! JR
PS. thanks for your well wishes regarding my wife Gina, it is greatly appreciated.
Well, I'm not going down the KHV road until we get this 24 hour cycling thing put to bed- but Roddy- I'm personally responsibe for the THOUSANDS of koi ponders that had KHV wipe outs?! I'm flattered that you think I am that powerful! I'm also wondering if there are THOUSANDS of hobbyists that have lost entire ponds to KHV? That sounds like a mighty big number! But if you say so, I won't quibble, I want to stay focused on the current subject. JR
Roark
06-09-2005, 10:19 PM
Koinonia is bang-on.
JR Ol Bean, you and I have been thumping the "hands-dirty" -vs- "book-smart" drum for years. Nothing will change in the forseeable future. You are what you are, your history is what it is... and the same can be said about me.
So now that the elephants have stopped mating (or at least mine has... and if yours hasn't... welll then this means he/she/it is doing it solo... which isn't healthy... he'll go blind... etc... heheheh), let me attempt to distill what you're saying so we're both on the same page. This is an attempt at communication. It may be short-lived, but I'll try it anyway.
What I THINK JR is saying is this:
With reference to the 3-day cycle experiment:
0). It matters not what compounds we add. Nitrification to nitrate (as that term is defined below) is not possible.
1). Any ammonia added to the experiment initially will be bound-out or degassed... but not converted into nitrite.
2). Any nitrite added to the experiment initially will be bound-out or degassed... but not converted into nitrate.
3). There will be no nitrate produced by the "BlammoBacter". None (or so little as to be virtually unmeasureable with common instruments).
4). The definition you hold for "nitrifier" is "a bacterial process which produces nitrate as the end result".
5). None of the "nitrifiers", under any conditions, and regardless of their "food supply" can work in such a short time (ie, 3 days).
Now, without a whit of antagonism, tell me if I've accurately hit the high points of your earlier posts. This is called "establishing common ground" so we can see where we differ and where we overlap.
If the above list is NOT accurate, please post a new, correct list. Please make it short-form, concise, etc. No rants. Just simple, concise statements of the facts as you see them. In return I will NOT comment on those statements in any way UNLESS I need a clarification, or something isn't clear, or perhaps just to acknowledge I've read what you posted. I'll be civil. And you'll stop calling Roddy hateful names.
Roark
OK fair enough–
1) What I believe in is the nitrification cycle ( see THE definition in my other post on same). I believe the time interval for this to be established is well documented in the literature and also similarly displayed during personal experiences with the many many systems I have owned and/or known. I also content that the species we are talking about are extremely slow growing compared to other bacterial species. They are also two species that tend to ‘come on’ sequentially for the reasons I have described.
2) I do believe that any ammonia you add to a virgin system will be degassed ( small percentage) or bound ( clay was discovered for koi use by the refresh exporter. He said way back in 1983 that he found the charge helpful in binding ammonia. It was the basis for his experimentation with clays and eventually the reason Southern California hobbyists starting using clay in the 1980s. I think this possibility should be checked out first before the announcement of Blammobacter.
3) nitrite is harder to explain away. But there are many other possibilities rather than a mystery bacteria? There is the sequence I described to you regarding the ‘footprints’ left by heterotrophic nitrification. There is the buttermilk possibility of fermentation or denitrification. A simple test of the source water for nitrates should at very least be done. BOD tests will reveal bacterial activity in the first 24- 96 hours.
4) Yes, that would be my definition because that is the ‘quality type’ we want. No other harmful by products and no pathogens generated.
5) Never said that. In fact I listed the other species that can reduce ammonia and nitrite- heterotrophic bacteria, photo bacteria, fungi etc. But again, and sorry to use something in writing but, many hobbyists, in both the aquarium hobby and the koi hobby report that heterotrophic based nitrification leads to a pond that suffers from may side effects of new pond syndrome because as the system gets more eutrophic in nature, as it must in a closed system, the fish are exposed to the back and forth of microbial domination. So this idea, and I think I understand what you are saying when you say “who cares as long as we get the koi over the ammonia and nitrite”! I think you said the fish don’t know. But in the examples I gave- the fish soon find out!
In the end, the system will still have to face a aerobic chemo cycle as these need to be the dominating species in all systems I have ever seen?
OK I’m running long– so that is my response.
JR
PS, those are pet names for Roddy and I can’t bring myself to stop! And by the way, PhD-I was Lansing’s , not mine. Although I have used in the past- distant past. I think the names give our friend some much needed color! I have been called, ‘the koi god’, ‘ know it all’, ‘koi snob’, ‘king of koi’, ‘the not- real koi judge’, ‘ he who fa*ts at my dinner table’, ‘ the pompous je*k’, ‘Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde’ ( my personal favorite), and the dimmer wits always seem to eventually and inevitably figure out that JR can be turned into a pejorative - Jr---- and many , many other names over the years. I let it just roll off my back 99% of the time! I just consider the source. Works almost every time. Besides its all in fun anyway.
Roddy Conrad
06-09-2005, 11:31 PM
Well, it seems tempers are cooling.
The outside koi pond, which had cycled from Sunday to Thursday in post No 1, in the meantime was hit daily for 5 days with 10 ppm PP charges to nuke the filter and pond system back to virgin. Then yesterday I stopped the PP treatments, allowed the pond to become clear, and added another 2.5 ppm ammonia charge. Today the ammonia was down to 1.5 ppm and the nitrite was up to 1 ppm, the first 24 hour data point. I will check tomorrow's data and post it here. This is my real life everyday experiment with this technology, and Lizzie agreed to leave the koi in the inside koi pond a few more days if we can have a civil discussion without a lot of name calling and so on.
This has been my everyday practice for 40 years. Look at a subject, read what folks think, figure out what they missed with a few key experiments, then invent new technology. It is my bread and butter stuff of my lifetime. And I have invented lots of new stuff. The deal is that folks who write books almost never know much about the subject. The folks who actually know about a subject have their names on patent applications, or their names on checks for awards for making more money for the companies for which the invention is done. Folks who write and read books don't do much in reality. That is why they have all that time to write and read.
Scientists are busy doing science things. And cats are busy doing cat things. Those who can't do something teach it or write books about it. That is why the books are generally such poor quality. And, hey, I didn't call anybody any names, just telling about my lifetime of observations about technology and how it goes. From the guy who really does it for a living.
Roark
06-09-2005, 11:59 PM
JR: That's useful, but not exactly what I'm gunning for.
Not be a prig here, but what I'm really looking for is a "JR document" that is self-contained that I can use as a guide which accurately reflects what you believe are criteria for evaluation. Essentially a stand-alone bulletted list if you will. The goal is to be able to say "okay, the results agree/disagree with JR/Roark on this point." And it needs to be something that uses common tools, methods, and is field-manageable. (Ie, no SEM's, PCRs, e-phors, etc).
See where I'm going with this? It'll be the yardstick by which any results are measured. Again, not to be an arse, but I *have* to get you nailed-down on this or there isn't a common ground on which to evaluate.
Can you take another swing at it?
Roark
A lifetime in the education factory... We have a saying [thanks in part to GB Shaw] --
He who can't -- teaches.
He who can't teach -- teaches others how to teach.
He who can't teach others how to teach -- becomes an administrator.
Roark
06-10-2005, 12:05 AM
In Danbury, they say "I'm a fixin' ta be edjuemakated". And it almost works, too. By the 10th grade, they can nearly read a TV Guide. :)
But don't get me started on "No Child Left Behind". That's a rant of a different topic and I'm hoping I'll have the will-power to stay focussed on BlammoBacter & Company.
JR? Over to you...
Roark
Good Morning! Well, I don’t know how I can supply my position yet another way? But I'll try--
Statement: I firmly believe in the chemolithotrophic nitrifying bacteria's ability to make the most stable and workable environment for fish living in a closed system. And I see alternative nitrifiers as 'interference' in the initial establishment of a nitrification cycle. The cycle typically takes 18-21 days based on temperature and conditions. And can take 28- 60 days if interference from algae and heterotrophic species is significant.
So it may be that I have a problem believing in a 24 hour, three day or even five day ‘fast cycle’ because I am well versed in the natural history, microbiology of the bacteria groups and the collective experience of all those scientists, aquarium hobbyists and koi keepers that came before us?
I have presented the various graphs and advanced photography as the standard for a typical nitrification cycle time, including ammonia levels. You will notice that ammonia oxidizers come on quickly as they expand their surface rather than reproduce, to meet the demand. Nitrite oxidizers are know to be suppressed by higher levels of ammonia. And very high amounts of ammonia are toxic even to ammonia ‘eaters’.
Therefore, I look for another explanation for the results you are seeing.
So just because you ‘see’ nitrite, you can not conclude you have created an alternative ‘bug’ to the normal cycle or that you even have, in a virgin system, any significant biofilm activity at all?
These things must be tested out before any claims can be made.
In my opinion, the ‘competition’, where two teams attempt to prove their individual theories will yield more in the way of understanding than one team with only one point of view. So you can look at this as me challenging your findings if that gives you inspiration to prove me wrong.
What I will do is follow the hypothesis and see where it leads me. And Roddy old chum, not to worry, if I stumble on the blammobacter, while trying to prove out my theory on what happens in the first 24 hours, I will name it ---Roddysomonas in your honor! ;)
Finally, Roark, the best advise I can give you in your attempt to pin me to a line or two is to say, use the four great questions I originally asked as definitive statements to gather information around and proof against.
Lowly tech ( Yep, I forgot that ‘nasty name on my list ) ;) JR
R&R, you will be interested to know that I started some initial notes for my end of the experiment and have begun to put together a laundry list of materials I will need to super charge the growth a 24 hour bacteria. I don’t believe this of course, but I’m trying to replicate the ‘soup’ as Roddy described from his ingredient list. The list looked very familiar? So I broke the rules and looked in a book?
The saltwater mix I use, that I mentioned in an earlier post, contains:
1) sodium chloride
2) magnesium chloride
3) magnesium sulfate
4) calcium sulfate
5) potassium sulfate
6) calcium carbonate ( pH 8.2)
7) potassium
8) sodium bromide
In addition, there is a wide selection of trace elements- both organic and inorganic.
The trace elements include hydroxycarboxylic acids, humic acids and fatty acids.
Is your formula significantly different from this saltwater mix?
I also had a question for Roark. Do you use a media when you do the stock tank demonstration? Or is it just that the water itself contains the new species of bacteria created by the added materials?
JR
Roddy, I did make note of your 'nuking' of the pond with PP the first time you posted that. And I had an instant thought about this assumption that the pond was ‘bacteria free’, as a possible initial flaw in the experiment. Let me explain--
PP is a powerful oxidizer. We both know that and the ORP meter proves that. But unlike ozone, which can enter a cell easily, PP is more of a surface reaction.
Secondly, although PP will absolutely zap what are known as bacterial swarmers, it has a harder time completely zapping a lush biofilm. This would be especially true if we are talking about porous or angular media like lava rock. And here is the exact reason why on a micro level-
biofilm is called ‘film’ because it has a matrix surrounding the member cells. This poly material lets things into the matrix but it is also is made up of materials that 'react' to things entering it. This applies to oxidants but also things like antibiotics. The result is that the power of the invading agent is 'drained away' or spent as it moves through the matrix. The odds of the resting cells , or any cells, surviving is high. Thin films, such as those found on plastic beads, plastic media, kaldnes etc. will likely not manage well. But you can never be assured you are operating a virgin system in the conditions you describe. The rebound time, by the way, for a disrupted biofilm, even a badly damaged one is about three to five days. In this period you would see a poop and then a decline in nitrite. Something for you both to think about?
What I propose, and will do here in lowly tech land, is that the large testing bowls used be disinfected, rinsed and very hot water ( above 180 F) be added before starting the experiment so that we are confident the conclusions we draw are accurate. I will also run the test with the TT filled with virgin lava rock and in the other test, with virgin plastic media.
JR
Koin-Onia
06-10-2005, 11:18 AM
Here is the format that I suggest you guys use.
MAIN
1. State the objective or Hypothesis
2. Present data in a clear format
3. Interpet the results
4. Conclusion
5. Overall understanding of the results provided
SECTIONS
Abstract first answer questions in a formal and structured way
INFORMATION
Provide the background information (include objectives and hypothesis)
METHOD
Specifics and details of the study information about participants,materials and measurement devices etc... Bottom line how did you do it.
RESULTS
report data and analyses where results consistent with hypothesis? What did you find?
DISCUSSION
Interpet the results of the experiment and in terms of a wide spectrum and importance. What do the results mean?
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
Any questions here is a link http://corporate.britannica.com/library/home/BSW_Science_Report.pdf
L5Vegan
06-10-2005, 12:44 PM
Should the amount of additives be adjusted for the source water?
Additive amounts from the first post in this thread.
Baking soda 2lb/1,000 gallons
Calcium chloride .5lb/1,000 gallons
Epsoms salt .5lb/1,000 gallons
Koi Clay .75lb/1,000 gallons
Since Roddy's source water has 0gh and 0kh this should give water with readings of ~4 degrees gh, and ~8degrees kh.(I could be wrong on that gh number.)
So my question is this, If my tap water is already at or above these levels (and assuming a relative balance between calcium and magnesium for the gh) would Koi Clay be the only needed additive to replicate the experiment?
Dan
Roddy Conrad
06-10-2005, 05:38 PM
Roddy, I did make note of your 'nuking' of the pond with PP the first time you posted that. And I had an instant thought about this assumption that the pond was ‘bacteria free’, as a possible initial flaw in the experiment. Let me explain--
PP is a powerful oxidizer. We both know that and the ORP meter proves that. But unlike ozone, which can enter a cell easily, PP is more of a surface reaction.
Secondly, although PP will absolutely zap what are known as bacterial swarmers, it has a harder time completely zapping a lush biofilm. This would be especially true if we are talking about porous or angular media like lava rock.
Roddy: So you finally agree that lava rock may have some advantages over other media besides being the least expensive option for a trickle tower media choice, it would appear. By the way, I have no objection to this argument, it may even be true.
And here is the exact reason why on a micro level-
biofilm is called ‘film’ because it has a matrix surrounding the member cells. This poly material lets things into the matrix but it is also is made up of materials that 'react' to things entering it. This applies to oxidants but also things like antibiotics. The result is that the power of the invading agent is 'drained away' or spent as it moves through the matrix. The odds of the resting cells , or any cells, surviving is high. Thin films, such as those found on plastic beads, plastic media, kaldnes etc. will likely not manage well. But you can never be assured you are operating a virgin system in the conditions you describe. The rebound time, by the way, for a disrupted biofilm, even a badly damaged one is about three to five days. In this period you would see a poop and then a decline in nitrite. Something for you both to think about?
Roddy: In the case in point, this pond was treated daily with high level PP treatments for a week, then drained for the entire winter and left dry. The biofilm would have to be really hardy to have survived all that abuse. But I agree it IS possible.
What I propose, and will do here in lowly tech land, is that the large testing bowls used be disinfected, rinsed and very hot water ( above 180 F) be added before starting the experiment so that we are confident the conclusions we draw are accurate. I will also run the test with the TT filled with virgin lava rock and in the other test, with virgin plastic media.
JR
Roddy
Roddy Conrad
06-10-2005, 05:43 PM
Should the amount of additives be adjusted for the source water?
Additive amounts from the first post in this thread.
Baking soda 2lb/1,000 gallons
Calcium chloride .5lb/1,000 gallons
Epsoms salt .5lb/1,000 gallons
Koi Clay .75lb/1,000 gallons
Since Roddy's source water has 0gh and 0kh this should give water with readings of ~4 degrees gh, and ~8degrees kh.(I could be wrong on that gh number.)
So my question is this, If my tap water is already at or above these levels (and assuming a relative balance between calcium and magnesium for the gh) would Koi Clay be the only needed additive to replicate the experiment?
Dan
If the biofilter design is matched, and a preferred media choice for the biofilter is chosen, in a word, YES. Choose a submerged media biofilter design and the cycle time is 2 to 4 times longer. Choose the wrong media and even a trickle tower design will fail.
Preferred media choices are lava rock, bioballs, and sintered glass (pricey but effective, meaning Siporax or Bio-glass). The worst media I ever tested was alpha grog, the problem with alpha grog is the pores in the media are only 1 to 2 microns large, which makes a trickle tower design into a submerged media filter.
Roddy Conrad
06-10-2005, 05:52 PM
JR's ingredient list from his post above and my comments:
1) sodium chloride - I don't use this, this is for salt water only.
2) magnesium chloride - this would be equally good as a choice instead of Epsom salt or magnesium sulfate, but Epsom salt is easier to find for the average hobbyist.
3) magnesium sulfate - I use this in the hydrate form where it is called Epsom salt in stores.
4) calcium sulfate - there would be nothing wrong with substituting calcium sulfate for calcium chloride.
5) potassium sulfate - I don't intentionally add potassium except as potassium permanganate, which I use often, so there is plenty of potassium in my ponds as a trace element.
6) calcium carbonate ( pH 8.2) - I never use calcium carbonate, it won't dissolve in any of its forms in my pond situations.
7) potassium
8) sodium bromide - I don't use this and don't understand why it would be needed in a fresh water pond.
In addition, there is a wide selection of trace elements- both organic and inorganic. Roddy: I get these from the Koi Clay.
The trace elements include hydroxycarboxylic acids, humic acids and fatty acids. Roddy: Koi Clay contains plenty of humic acids, don't know about the fatty acids.
Is your formula significantly different from this saltwater mix? Roddy: Yes, as marked above. Forget the sodium chloride. Forget the sodium bromide. Forget the calcium carbonate, it will form anyway from the other ingredients. Change the ratio of ingredients to match fresh water situation. Add bentonite clay in great excess. Add baking soda if the alkalinity is below 150 ppm.
Roddy, I know this is going to sound argumentive , but it is not meant to be---
If I already use these ingredients in every saltwater tank I cycle and it takes 21 days, how will this be any different in freshwater? JR
Roddy Conrad
06-10-2005, 09:23 PM
First, salt water biofiltration is not fresh water biofiltration. As you surely read in Tim Hovenec's articles, the species of bacteria that do the biofiltration changes with salt content. So if the species of bacteria are different, you should expect them to react differently to external stimuli, and have different growth rates, etc.
Second, those dumb wet/dry filters used below salt water tanks are no match for a well designed trickle tower performance. It is hard for the degassing to take place in a commercial wet/dry aquarium filter if you look at the construction. That is probably why they are nitrate factories, while a good fresh water trickle tower gets rid of nitrates.
Third, you do NOT list calcium bentonite in your list of chemicals to add to the mix, and I tell you from a lot of my tests the calcium bentonite is essential to good biofilter performance, at least it is with my source water, your source water may be trace mineral rich and act differently.
Fourth, high alkalinity from baking soda addition always helps the biofilter performance and the cycle time, but you wrote in the chapter on filtration in Koi Kichi Two that there is no circumstance whatsoever that baking soda should be added to pond water. So from that statement in a chapter you wrote in a recently published ponding hobby book, I assume you have not added baking soda and tested it. Right? Or not right?
Fifth, if you already know the answer without running a test, the test can always be arranged to give the answer you want. That is always easy to do if the technology is well understood. It is always a problem doing research, meaning the bias of the investigator. And I am NOT saying I am completely unbiased, but at least my bias comes from many years of actual experiments and the data I have collected. I have run many cycle tests that took LONGER than your 21 days, as well as the ones that cycled in 1 day, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days, 10 days, 14 days, never cycled in 60 days, and so on. I paid attention to the cycle time and the test condition, and whether the cycled pond killed fish or not. That is what this thread has been about. And here on the 19th page, maybe, just maybe, we are starting to have a real discussion about the subject.
Roddy, yes the species or subspecies in the soil, in freshwater and salt water may trun out to be 'different' based on very detailed review using the most modern of technologies and lab tests- but it is uncanny how each takes the same time to cycle. 18 days seems to be the 'fastest' cycle under ideal conditions with 21 days being the 'normal' time frame for both fresh and salt species and subspecies.
The saltwater mixes have baking soda in them. That is where the buffering comes from. Same as the chiclid mixes and mabuna salt mixes. I will use the baking soda in my experiment.
And to be clear, I am running this not to 'scoop' you or ' debunk' the R&R research team. I am now curious as to where the ammonia actually goes in 24 hours.
What is the temperature, typically, where you have gotten the best results? JR
Koin-Onia
06-11-2005, 02:22 AM
Dang you guys are actually getting something accomplished. I guess according to Roark I have kind of been designated as the individual to write this up as a actual experiment and monitor the testing. I will do this unbiased and if Stephen and Mary come and he brings all that awesome testing equipment. He and I can run these tests together.
Keep working together or I will give you all a pet name, tell you ya dress funny and all that.:p: :D: :cool:
OK, no luck finding a source for the large hydra blue bowls? Any one know one? I have two but I'll need at least three more for the parallel systems I want to fun. TTs are no problem- I have six 36 inch tall ones. The pumps should be here in a few days.
Although I do not recommend The Direct Inorganic Method ( the addition of only inorganic ammonium chloride) and no seeding, I will try it here and also have the opportunity to experience the original Siddall method. Although I have used the modified Siddall method ( added two charges of seeded media at key moments in the cycle ) in many marine set ups, I never had the patience to wait for natural bacteria counts to rise from zero. The trick in seeding is to add seeded media at a rate of 10%-15% by volume, to the virgin media.
The second reason I have stopped using the Siddall method when I step up to ponds , is that unlike an indoor, light controlled, temperature controlled fish tank, the outdoor pond is a more organically rich or eutrophic environment. Organically rich with changing temperatures and natural photo cycles means algae and heterotrophic species will be naturally present in abundance. So the approach is different. Indeed, more that one Direct Inorganic Method cycling has resulted in a required SECOND cycle once the first has appeared to be established. This is because just as a nitrifying filter numbers will rise and fall with the number of fish you add or take out, a nitrifying filter will also rise and fall from new competition from new microbes until an ultimate balance is established. So the Direct Inorganic method will often delay equilibrium - ironically, what it was designed to over come originally!
In ponds, the QUALITY of the cycle tends to be much more important that the time it takes to create the cycle. To accomplish this, it is usually best to consider two things:
1) the nutrient added should mimic the 'future' nutrient generated by the fish. This means forms of inorganic and organic ammonia. (Yet, too much organic materia will encourage pathogens.)
2) an array of bacteria and microbes that already manage an existing successful pond should be introduced in sufficient numbers to establish a microbial community similar to the successful system they were taken from ( 10-15% by volume). This is the idea behind bottled bacteria products. Yet most bottled bacteria products , even with a selection of bacteria species never seem to be able to shorten the ESTABLISHMENT time of a stable biofilm. They can however, reduce ammonia and nitrite initially. And also act as a source of initial seeding. Ask yourself WHY this is?
As you know, bacteria reproduce primarily by a process known as fission or binary fission. Basically, the cell splits into two ‘daughter’ cells, those two cells split into four cells and so on. This continues, in a geometric progression, until a condition known as steady state occurs. I refer to it often as ‘equilibrium’. The cell count is equal to the nutrient source produced by the koi.
The time required to double the population is called ‘generation time’ and this can be calculated as :
Generation time = t / 3.3 ( log B1 - log B0)
t is the time period of growth for the bacteria cell
( Log B1 is the logarithm to the base 10 of the number of bacteria at the time, t )
( log B0 is the logarithm to the base 10 of the number of bacteria at the starting time)
We know that , in lab conditions, Heterotrophic species are capable of dividing once every 7 minutes to once every 20 minutes. We also know from researchers like Timothy Hovanec that freshwater water nitrifiers divide every few hours or so. I have seen estimates from various sources , of 2 hours to 9 hours with 2- 5 being the most common times quoted. This can be explained by the fact that those doing research on ‘wild’ biofilm will see division being slow/ limited by limited nutrient available. Other quotes are for soil nitrifiers like the classic nitrosomonas europaea and nitrobacter winogradskyi which can take several days to reproduce one division under adverse or even normal conditions in acidic soil.
If you consider these Generation times, you can appreciate the competition! A heterotrophic cell will multiply from one to 1,000 cells in 3.3 hours! And to one million cells in 6.6 hours!!!
This is why water sometimes will get cloudy over night when you feed or over feed a koi food very high in protein ( nitrogenous waste is very high!). In a matter of hours after feeding, the water column is filled with nitrogenous waste. This ‘fuels’ the heterotrophic numbers. IF you think about this you will realize that what you are seeing is the slow generation time of nitrifiers up against the fast generation time of heterotrophic species. Before the poky nitrifiers can get a cell division or two off, the heterotrophic species are already at the party! Kinda like ‘weeds vs grass’ or JR being able to jump as high as Roddy! ;)
JR
Actually Roddy, I have to take issue with your characterization of wimpy TTs in marine systems. If you think about it for a minute the scale is actually BETTER on a fish tank system than a typical four foot trickle tower on a koi pond. And the turn over rate is higher- 5-6 times an hour in some cases. The media to total water volume is greater as well. And finally, the dwell time and water volume ratio is larger in the aquarium set up. Lets play with some measurements-
A typical 55 gallon aquarium probably actually holds something like 48 gallons with sand and live rock- maybe less? The typical TT in these applications is 12 X 12 and holds 15 gallons of media. An additional advantage is gained by the fact that all the water passes over it more times an hour than in the typical pond application.
So size matters! And in this case, the advantage goes to the miniature version!
I also need to point out that nitrate levels compound due to excellent and ACTIVE biofilters. And the amount of nitrate produce is not only a gauge of efficiency but also an indication of cell numbers - as a response or ‘by product’ of the amount of nutrient being fed to the system. So nitrate is not a bad thing per se. It is more, an indicator of reality.
Saltwater systems, when done well, produce consistently lower levels of nitrate than a koi pond because the biomass is typically smaller and the nutrient source is generally lower- as it must be or the marine fish will not tolerate the water quality. So in this case, miniature is definitely potentially a negative but practically speaking, the system must be run ‘cleaner; or the fish won’t survive. So no one feeds marine fish ten times a day like we do with koi. What goes into the fish as future nitrogenous waste must come out! When it does, it will naturally be nitrate down the line. A TT will simply ‘vent’ some small percentage of the load ( gaseous forms) of the various steps of nitrogen along the way. It is small but constant and cumulative over time. Resulting in generally lower nitrate level than otherwise would be in a all submerged system.
Sorry, just want to set the record more accurately.
JR
Roddy Conrad
06-11-2005, 08:46 AM
JR, if you do your own filtration cycle tests, let me warn you in advance on one issue. If you do not use a massive overdose of the specific Koi Clay brand of calcium bentonite, I will not agree your data is any way a test of what I have been practicing. Just so ya know before you spend your energy developing data and post it for folks to compare.
As an example, I am currently doing another filtration cycle test. I left the Koi Clay charge out to see if anything happened in my normal time scale. Two days went by, no ammonia drop, no measuable nitrite. Yesterday evening, I threw in my "normal massive" charge of Koi Clay, made the water murky with it, lots of aeration so it mixes well, left the aeration on overnight to be sure. This morning, the ammonia had dropped from 2.5 ppm to 0.6 ppm (overnight as usual), nitrite had skyrocketed to a level the test kit won't measure because it is "out of range high".
And that is what we want to see.
By massive overdose, I mean about 20 times the normally recommended dose level, and with a huge amount of aeration, so it mixes well instead of sitting on the bottom of the pond unmixed.
So place an order for Koi Clay, plenty of it, or don't pretend you are practicing what I describe.
Roark
06-11-2005, 09:45 AM
OK, no luck finding a source for the large hydra blue bowls? Any one know one? I have two but I'll need at least three more for the parallel systems I want to fun.
JR: You might try William Lim. He's got all sorts of plastic bowls, tanks and goodies. He's shipping them from Minnesota (if memory serves) and should be able to respond quickly with minimal time enroute since you're in NJ.
Roark
Koin-Onia
06-11-2005, 11:40 AM
Try the Sarge he had some left as of Louisville.
Thanks Roark, I'll email William
Roddy I have no koi clay, only an empty semi opique plastic bottle with the labe koi clay on it! I do have many jars of terrapond and what I actually use- Refresh. I think of refresh as the Mercedes of calcium clays. Pure, pure , pure and very finely milled, it melts in the water like snow! Would id this no good in your estimation?
I use, by the way, one cup of clay for every one thousand gallons of water I change as a regular practice.
Roddy Conrad
06-15-2005, 06:40 PM
As an example, I am currently doing another filtration cycle test. I left the Koi Clay charge out to see if anything happened in my normal time scale. Two days went by, no ammonia drop, no measuable nitrite. Yesterday evening (now 5 days ago), I threw in my "normal massive" charge of Koi Clay, made the water murky with it, lots of aeration so it mixes well, left the aeration on overnight to be sure. This morning, the ammonia had dropped from 2.5 ppm to 0.6 ppm (overnight as usual), nitrite had skyrocketed to a level the test kit won't measure because it is "out of range high".
And that is what we want to see.
By massive overdose, I mean about 20 times the normally recommended dose level, and with a huge amount of aeration, so it mixes well instead of sitting on the bottom of the pond unmixed.
So place an order for Koi Clay, plenty of it, or don't pretend you are practicing what I describe.
Here is an update on that particular filter test.
Two days of no Koi Clay, no virgin filter action, 2.5 ppm ammonia, no nitrite, no nitrate.
Throw in the massive Koi Clay charge, overnight the ammonia dropped to 0.6 ppm, another 12 hours to 0.17 ppm, another 12 hours to 0.00 ppm; at that point nitrite was above the level any of my test kits will measure accurately. So the pond "cycled for ammonia" completely in 36 hours. Today, 5 days after the Koi Clay charge, the nitrite level also dropped from above the measurement limit to 0.2 ppm. So the pond filter "cycled for nitrite" in 5 days from the Koi Clay charge. However, fish could safely have been added at the 36 hour mark if salt is added to protect the fish from the nitrite levels; certainly the koi won't have problems with a high nitrite level for only 5 days if there is a reasonable salt level to protect them, and even without salt, it takes more than 5 days of high nitrite to do serious damage to the fish.
So the virgin filter "cycled" in 5 days for ammonia and nitrite, and "cycled' in 36 hours to add fish if salt is added.
Plenty good enough for my koi hobby, don't know about you and your koi hobby.....
By the way, about the Koi Clay. Why does it help the biofilter cycle fast, why is it the major "secret ingredient" for fast biofilter cycling? There are currently at least 3 theories.
Theory 1: The Koi Clay chemically binds the ammonia. Bad theory. If that were true, I wouldn't be seeing the high nitrite when the ammonia disappears, and the high nitrite "usually" (but not always) occurs in these tests.
Theory 2: The trace minerals in the Koi Clay give such a boost to biobug multiplication that the filter cycles 10 times faster. Possible, can't prove or disprove this theory, good theory, don't know if it is right or not.
Theory 3: All soil has some biofiltration bacteria present, since soil also biodegrades anything that hits it like ammonia and so on. That is why fertilyzer has to be reapplied year after year to help grow plants, the soil biotreats the ammonia in the fertilyzer. Calcium bentonite is, after all, simply mined dirt of a special type, and the only treatment after mining it is to grind it up at a low temperature. There is NO chemical treatment, at least not in Koi Clay, and I don't think any of the calcium bentonite sources have any significant chemical or heat treatment that would kill off any biofilm in the soil. There have been many PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC reports of biofilms living in dormant states for years, to become active when put in the right environment. So one theory, one that can't be dispoven yet, is the calcium bentonite contains enough biofilm to give a virgin filter such a jump start as I measure. To add to that theory, if I treat the Koi Clay with a high PP charge, it does no good and the cycle time is "normal", meaning weeks instead of days.
Well, I know practically all of you are sick of this thread, but just wanted to add my thoughts from the last few days, and a bit more data, in case it generates interesting thoughts or experiments elsewhere.
And, please, have a VERY nice day, it is good to see cooler tempers lately.
Graham
06-15-2005, 07:24 PM
Roddy for the last week, since I put the fish back into the main pond, I've been battling Costia.....I won but it took several 3+ppm of PP treatments and salt at 0.42% but everyone is now back to about 98% of normal.....
......But in the nuking of the pond I upset the nitrobacter/spira bacteria...I've got a nitrite spike of about 0.5ppm....there is no ammonia....zilch......so for the hell of it I just threw in 3+ cups of plain old calcium bentonite clay...not Refine, Refresh or Koi Clay or any of the other clay products on the market.
These are TT's and have been running non-stop for almost 5 years so this little blip really isn't anything,these are well established bio's. This would normally be gone in 5 or 6 days...if the **** weather would warn up, but if the clay is the main component then may it'll be gone in a couple of days..maybe tomorrow
I'll keep yopu posted
Pond parameters are
pH 7.3
NH3 0.0
NO2 0.5
NO3 <10
KH 50
GH 60
salt 0.42%
Temp 61* brrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Roddy Conrad
06-15-2005, 08:33 PM
Graham, thanks for the extra tests, each well reported data point adds to the picture so maybe we can see something clearer at the end. The nitrite eating biofilms are certainly more fragile than the ammonia eating biofilms, no question about that! But it takes a while for nitrite to do a number on the fish, high ammonia can kill fish in a hurry, especially at high pH.
About that weather, it has been in the 90's here for the daytime high the last two weeks, 70's at night.
Dr Peach, as per Roark's and your advice I have mentally blocked out all the book nonsense I learned over the last twenty years. Now that I am dumbed down to the beginner ponder level in terms of un-necessary information, I am doing the experiments as you suggested. I do have communication going with the Japanese gentleman that brought montmorillonite to koi keeping in 1983, and he says the positive/negative charge of clay and ammonia is real, but I'm going to ignore his input in favor of yours.
So I have two identical set ups just about complete and will have three more on line by next weekend. I contacted Gene and have several pounds of koi clay in shipment as we speak.
I was going to use ammonium chloride and/or 'Turtle water' to demonstrate both the inorganic method and organic method. Is ammonium chloride OK with you or should I use another form? JR
So as I'm clear Roddy, you added 2.5 ppm of inorganic ammonia to the water. The water was new and the media was virgin. Upon adding the ammonia you took a reading and the level was 2.5 ppm- is that right? I assume you added baking soda and magnesium the day before or upon set up? JR
Roddy Conrad
06-15-2005, 08:49 PM
Ammonium chloride is ideal since it provides ammonia without significant effect on the alkalinity or pH, so I certainly agree with your choice. I have personally been using reagent grade ammonium hydroxide, 5 normal concentration, adding it in sufficient doses to get the desired ammonia level.
Thank you very much for your interest and participation. We all look forward to your reports.
Roddy Conrad
06-15-2005, 08:53 PM
So as I'm clear Roddy, you added 2.5 ppm of inorganic ammonia to the water. The water was new and the media was virgin. Upon adding the ammonia you took a reading and the level was 2.5 ppm- is that right? I assume you added baking soda and magnesium the day before or upon set up? JR
I filled the pond, started aeration and mixing, added baking soda to obtain 250 ppm alkalinity, added equal parts Epsom salt and calcium chloride to get 100 ppm GH, then added ammonia as ammonium hydroxide, let it mix, measured the ammonia level at 2.5 ppm, then added the Koi Clay, two cups per 1000 gallons. Then measured ammonia and nitrite with time with Hanna colorimeter technology.
PS Roddy, even though I have sworn off book stuff as it is beneath us in the research end of the koi hobby ( ;) My bad!) , can you direct me to a paper that talkings about and explains how nitrifying bacteria is able to remain viable in dried earth- spore formation??) ? Also your associate Roark, seems to promote Dr T Hovanec's work on a species that is responsible for freshwater nitrification and it is a different species from the one that inhabits the soil. Any comments or explanation on this discrepancy? JR
Roddy, I thought we were working with a virgin environment? Unless I have missed something, you are using a pond with biofilm already in it? IF clay can harbor spores after desiccation and milling, according to your and Roark's theory, certainly your ponds semi damp surface or standing water can harbor a live biofilm ( albeit it reduced and starved)? What am I missing? JR
Susan Reed
06-15-2005, 09:15 PM
ok, I think, mind you, I said "think" :thinking: I understand but to make sure......please tell me how to seed a 5000 gal new pond.....and will this be ready for winter since we will be putting this in late July and Aug.
Roddy Conrad
06-15-2005, 09:28 PM
ok, I think, mind you, I said "think" :thinking: I understand but to make sure......please tell me how to seed a 5000 gal new pond.....and will this be ready for winter since we will be putting this in late July and Aug.
Okay, build the pond, build the filter system, fill the pond, fix any leaks, and when the pond is "semi-finished", and the filter system has water running through it, add an ammonia source at 3 to 10 ppm, and I suggest you also add some Koi Clay. Then measure for ammonia and nitrite every few days until the ammonia and nitrite have been converted. Then the pond is ready for fish.
"Ammonia sources" include the following:
Ammonium sulfate available at many farm stores and garden centers, a good ammonia source that is "usually" easy to find.
Household ammonia, WITHOUT ANY SOAP, some grocery stores carry it.
Ammonium chloride, harder to obtain, but ideal if you can find it.
Reagent ammonium hydroxide (that is what I am using), easy for a chemist, not so easy for anyone else, that is why I suggest household ammonia instead.
Find one of these, tell us which one, and we will give you directions for dosing the pond on the forum.
Roark
06-15-2005, 09:32 PM
Your associate Roark, seems to promote Dr T Hovanec's work on a species that is responsible for freshwater nitrification and it is a different species from the one that inhabits the soil. Any comments or explanation on this discrepancy? JR
Roark promotes nothing of the sort. I've posted my observations, same as I ever do. Make of those observations what you wish, but if you want to endorse Hovanec's (or anybody elses) theories, do it minus the "Roark" reference. I promote nothing but my own observations.
Roark
Susan Reed
06-15-2005, 09:52 PM
boy ......this is a great thread and needs to be set aside for newbies to read :yes:
We will be on a time table to get the new pond in and ready for fish by late Aug if possible. I heard that seeding the new pond with ammonia and then watching it go down is one way to make sure your filter has kicked in.....but I'm wondering what the time table will be before we can move our fish in to their new home?
auntiesue
06-16-2005, 02:11 AM
May I also participate in your experiments? I have a new large koi pond just about ready to go online AGAIN and would like to try Roddy's and Roark's approach to see how well it works. I hope to fill the pond in a day or two. Will have the amount of gallons at that time from my water meter, but will need some help with the dosages of the recommended additives such as clay, epsom salt, etc. Once I have the gallons would either Roddy or Roark give me some help with that? I don't have meters for measuring, but do have all the test kits new and ready.
The liner is new, the filters are newly built, new filter media. Everything is new. Never has a fish touched it <g>.
Here's my thread about my recent problems.
http://koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15492
Roddy Conrad
06-16-2005, 06:20 AM
The "fast" filter cycle time in my own trials are the result of many trials over many years. Filter design is an integral part of that "fast" filter cycle process. I prefer trickle tower or shower filter designs with lava rock as the media for fast filter cycling. However, filters will cycle from ammonia addition with other designs, but the time is likely to take longer. Your fish will appreciate a cycled filter so they don't have to experience high ammonia and high nitrite.
Get the pond and filter ready. Measure the water parameters after filling the pond and recirculating the water through the filter system. If the source water is soft, with low GH, add Epsom salt and/or calcium chloride to get the GH up around 100 ppm. If the alkalinity is below 100 ppm, add baking soda to obtain alkalinity at or above 150 ppm, one pound of baking soda per 1000 gallons increases the alkalinity by 71 ppm. Then add two cups of Koi Clay per 1000 gallons, add it at the maximum turbulence zone in the pond, perhaps in a waterfall or on a working aeration device. Then add the ammonia source, the charge will depend on the particular source of ammonia you can easily obtain. Then measure once per day for ammonia. When the ammonia drops, nitrite should go up. When the ammonia has dropped to near zero, and the nitrite has dropped to near zero, you are ready to add some fish. Or when the ammonia has dropped to near zero, if you want to go ahead and add fish, add 2 pounds of salt (meaning sodium chloride) per 100 gallons to protect the fish from the high nitrite, and go ahead and add the fish.
If the filter design is very good, the ammonia should drop to near zero in a few days, and the nitrite should be near zero in about a week. If the filter design is not so good, the ammonia drop may take a few weeks, and the nitrite drop may take a few more weeks.
JR may like other methods, any of them work, some work better than others. But cycling a filter before adding fish certainly makes for a better environment for the fish, one less likely to give fish health problems.
Roddy, do you find that salt inhibits nitrobacter, nitrospina growth? JR
Professor Conrad, I only have a small supply of pure ammonium chloride as it turns out. I need to order more in quantity. I do have immediate access to a buffered pill however that contains:
4 mg chloride as ammonium chloride
322 mg of ammonium as ammonium chloride
164 mg of – dicalcium phosphate, silicon dioxide and stearic acid.
( this is all buffered with potassium phosphate)
Is this acceptable for testing purposes?
JR
Roddy Conrad
06-16-2005, 05:45 PM
I don't think adding phosphate to a cycle test is a good idea. It will generate an algae bloom that will consume ammonia. So anything that provides a significant amount of phosphate is likely to give "better" cycle results from the help from the algae.
Try the local garden store for ammonium sulfate, at least my local garden store carries it, that source of ammonia is less likely to confuse results.
I have not added salt to my cycle tests. I would expect it to have a negative effect at some level, but don't know at what level the negative effect would be noticeable.
stephen
06-16-2005, 06:05 PM
Great thread.:cool: Let's do a guessing poll on how long it takes to cycle. The Hillbilly:) redneck:) canadian:mad: :mad: will put it up.
What catagories:confused:
1-5 days;)
6-10 days:)
11 -20 days:yes:
Longer:rolleyes:
You tell us! Roddy, Roark, JPR :confused: that sound ok for poll cats
Canadian RedNeck
06-16-2005, 06:10 PM
Great thread.:cool: Let's do a guessing poll on how long it takes to cycle. The Hillbilly:) redneck:) canadian:mad: :mad: will put it up.
What catagories:confused:
1-5 days;)
6-10 days:)
11 -20 days:yes:
Longer:rolleyes:
You tell us! Roddy, Roark, JPR :confused: that sound ok for poll cats
over here boss..... :yes:
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20589
:D:
Roark
06-16-2005, 06:21 PM
JR: In most areas ammonium chloride is as close as the hardware store. Locally my Lowes carries it. Look in the welding/soldering section next to the solder and fluxes. Ammonium chloride is sold in cubes about 2 inches square in a yellow overwrap box. In the trade it's called a "tinning block" and is used to reclaim/tin the tip of industrial sheet-metal soldering irons. The cube is snow-white in color. It's about 99% pure and quite cheap. Failing that you can order it cheaply and quickly in prill or crystal form from Tri-Ess Sciences on Chestnut Dr. in Burbank, CA. (May also be listed as "Student Science Service, ie, "SSS" or "Tri-Ess"). The owner is Ira Katz... an old friend and outstanding chemist.
Roark
MikeM
06-20-2005, 08:51 AM
What's the status?
auntiesue
06-21-2005, 02:13 AM
The "fast" filter cycle time in my own trials are the result of many trials over many years. Filter design is an integral part of that "fast" filter cycle process. I prefer trickle tower or shower filter designs with lava rock as the media for fast filter cycling. However, filters will cycle from ammonia addition with other designs, but the time is likely to take longer. Your fish will appreciate a cycled filter so they don't have to experience high ammonia and high nitrite.
Get the pond and filter ready. Measure the water parameters after filling the pond and recirculating the water through the filter system. If the source water is soft, with low GH, add Epsom salt and/or calcium chloride to get the GH up around 100 ppm. If the alkalinity is below 100 ppm, add baking soda to obtain alkalinity at or above 150 ppm, one pound of baking soda per 1000 gallons increases the alkalinity by 71 ppm. Then add two cups of Koi Clay per 1000 gallons, add it at the maximum turbulence zone in the pond, perhaps in a waterfall or on a working aeration device. Then add the ammonia source, the charge will depend on the particular source of ammonia you can easily obtain. Then measure once per day for ammonia. When the ammonia drops, nitrite should go up. When the ammonia has dropped to near zero, and the nitrite has dropped to near zero, you are ready to add some fish. Or when the ammonia has dropped to near zero, if you want to go ahead and add fish, add 2 pounds of salt (meaning sodium chloride) per 100 gallons to protect the fish from the high nitrite, and go ahead and add the fish.
If the filter design is very good, the ammonia should drop to near zero in a few days, and the nitrite should be near zero in about a week. If the filter design is not so good, the ammonia drop may take a few weeks, and the nitrite drop may take a few more weeks.
JR may like other methods, any of them work, some work better than others. But cycling a filter before adding fish certainly makes for a better environment for the fish, one less likely to give fish health problems.
Roddy, thanks for the information. We filled the pond over the weekend. My GH and KH are very high so that won't be an issue. I'll gather what I need to get this going this week and report my test results. I have 4 DIY towers on my system and a fluid bed filter running now (10,500 gallon pond). Will not bring UV online until the pond is cycled. Hope I can find a good ammonia source easily. If push comes to shove can I use the bottled ammonia (clear)??? I'll order in Clay tomorrow.
All media in both the fluid bed and the showers are plastic. I'm sure that will influence the cycle time, but will be interesting to see the difference.
Roddy Conrad
06-21-2005, 06:07 AM
My own main Hanna Colorimeter for accurate data collection went belly up over the weekend, so I sent it in for repair yesterday.
When it gets back, I will start another virgin cycle test just for kicks.
I'm going to ask this of the R&R team as gently as possible so as not to upset---
Gentlemen, you feel that after years of careful testing and research that you have created an ability to cause a complete nitrification cycle over a 24-36 hour period.
I guess the question is then– What causes this physiological change in the nitrifying bacteria?
Roddy, you have said in the past that you may have invented a new species in your lava rock trickle tower. Is this new species in the normal genera we know or something completely new, in your opinion? As I understand it, you attribute your success to a combination of milled clay and trickling action of water over virgin larva media. I’m assuming here that you both mean that the clay and oxygen give a sort of super ability to the nitrifiers that allows them to reproduce from ‘unmeasurable’ numbers in a virgin environment to millions in 24 hours. And that these 24 hour results can’t be achieved if the media is put underwater. And in Roark’s species, there is no media required- just water, additives and a stock tank? Am I right on this or am I putting words in you’ll mouths? Just trying to get your positions and theories straight. JR
Sue, you need to time the cyle from the time you set up and circulate the water if you want a virgin test? From the moment you put in the water and begin circualting, bacteria start to grow. The water will pick up pollen, dust, alage fragments, airborne bacteria etc. By next week, you will have active heterotrophic species in good numbers and likely some nirtrifers in your mix-
In my case, I have just about everything I need now:
a new hydro tank ( 400 gallons)
a trickle tower
recirculation pump
newly bought lava rock
ammonium chloride
meters/color test kits
Gene's brand of clay.
heat treated water from well.
The set up will be placed outdoors, out of sunlight and away from the humid air of the quarantine room ( bacteria transfer).
An identical system will be set up 10 feet away. It will be seeded with active biofilm ( 10% volume of the TT capacity).
The time frame will be 21 days for both systems. The tests will begin on July 1.
Carloskoi
06-21-2005, 08:04 AM
cool, what kind of testing equipment/kits will you use? how often?
what is your protocol for adding additional ammonia during the test?
is the trickle tower the same type that you have on your pond with the plastic media?
Carl
morning Carl, I'll take pictures as I get my act together this weekend. But yes, it is an identical design to the big towers only just 36 inches tall and 12 inches wide. I will use a larve rock media as per Roddy's advice. I would like to test every six-eight hours . And I will use two common test kits ( tetra/Lamott) and one color based kit but the color is read by a meter instead of the human eye. More on that later.
I also have a few ideas about demonstrating the ability of clays in effecting ammonia concentration. This should be fun! JR
auntiesue
06-21-2005, 01:15 PM
Sue, you need to time the cyle from the time you set up and circulate the water if you want a virgin test? From the moment you put in the water and begin circualting, bacteria start to grow. The water will pick up pollen, dust, alage fragments, airborne bacteria etc. By next week, you will have active heterotrophic species in good numbers and likely some nirtrifers in your mix-
In my case, I have just about everything I need now:
a new hydro tank ( 400 gallons)
a trickle tower
recirculation pump
newly bought lava rock
ammonium chloride
meters/color test kits
Gene's brand of clay.
heat treated water from well.
The set up will be placed outdoors, out of sunlight and away from the humid air of the quarantine room ( bacteria transfer).
An identical system will be set up 10 feet away. It will be seeded with active biofilm ( 10% volume of the TT capacity).
The time frame will be 21 days for both systems. The tests will begin on July 1.
OH SHOOT!!! Then this system will not do. It's been running now since Sunday and I won't have a chance to "charge" the system as suggested above. Oh well, I'll be an observant student as this thread moves on. As I'm sure many are, I will be very interested in seeing the test results.
Roddy Conrad
06-21-2005, 06:58 PM
Hey, JR, why do the test out of sunlight, when surely at least 99.9% of all ponds are in sunlight? It is an honest question! Sometimes sunlight does seem to help the cycle time go faster, and most of my tests were in direct sunlight. And, if the Koi Clay somehow catalyzes some interaction with the sun, there is nothing wrong with that, right?
Roddy Conrad
06-21-2005, 07:17 PM
I'm going to ask this of the R&R team as gently as possible so as not to upset---
Gentlemen, you feel that after years of careful testing and research that you have created an ability to cause a complete nitrification cycle over a 24-36 hour period.
Roddy: Ammonia is down a factor of 10 in 36 hours, it takes several more days for the nitrite to drop to low levels, but fish can be protected for these few days from the high nitrite by moderate salt (2 pounds per 100 gallons), giving the possibility of adding fish 2 days safely two days after startup of a "virgin" system.
JR: I guess the question is then– What causes this physiological change in the nitrifying bacteria?
Roddy, you have said in the past that you may have invented a new species in your lava rock trickle tower.
Roddy: I don't remember saying I invented any new bacteria species. I do remember saying that I have read published scientific articles detailing aerobic bacteria species that were documented to directly convert nitrite to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide. But I took no credit for those identifications, I was only trying to explain possible theories about how the ammonia can be transformed to nitrite and the nitrite transformed without making any measurable nitrate in some of my biofilter tests.
JR: Is this new species in the normal genera we know or something completely new, in your opinion?
Roddy: The species are identified in research articles, I don't make any attempt to identify bacteria strains myself.
JR: As I understand it, you attribute your success to a combination of milled clay and trickling action of water over virgin larva media.
Roddy: You simplify. It is the combination of a gross overcharge of Koi Clay, trickling action of water over new lava rock media, high alkalinity, medium hardness, and sunlight. By the way, there is such a thing as newly purchased lava rock media, but even new lava rock may also harbor biofilms no matter what its origin, since it lays around in rain and the air and sunlight in porous bags with holes in them in my local Lowes building supply. Mined natural lava rock could not be virgin, and also could harbor biofilms. These are good reasons to choose lava rock if you want a cheap fast cycling media for a trickle tower. Now if you want a light, portable trickle tower, then I buy bioballs.....
JR: I’m assuming here that you both mean that the clay and oxygen give a sort of super ability to the nitrifiers that allows them to reproduce from ‘unmeasurable’ numbers in a virgin environment to millions in 24 hours.
Roddy: I don't count bacteria. I measure the disappearance of ammonia, the appearance and disappearance of nitrite, and the possible appearance and disappearance of nitrate. I don't really care about your bacteria arguments, I just care about fast cycling of filter systems to take care of new fish in a hurry from "freshly bought media" and homemade filter systems. That is because that is all a normal ponder should want.
JR: And that these 24 hour results can’t be achieved if the media is put underwater.
Roddy: If the media is under water, in my tests, the cycle time is at least 4 times longer and the same amount of the same type of media when under water, without air stones around the media, will carry at least a factor of 4 less ammonia load successfully to low ammonia and nitrite values than the trickle tower design.
JR: And in Roark’s species, there is no media required- just water, additives and a stock tank? Am I right on this or am I putting words in you’ll mouths? Just trying to get your positions and theories straight. JR
Roddy: I answer for myself, Roark answers for himself.
Roddrick, to answer your first question to me- why out of the sun? I don’t want the results of the two parallel experiments to be effected by :
1) temperature fluctuation from full sun light through the day
2) algae growth effecting the ammonia levels
3) any controversy regarding the inhibition of nitrifier growth caused by bright sunlight and UV.
Roddy, you are confusing me again?? You said in response to my question about bacteria ---
“I don't really care about your bacteria arguments, I just care about fast cycling of filter systems to take care of new fish in a hurry from "freshly bought media" and homemade filter systems. That is because that is all a normal ponder should want.” But then you said in the same post --------
“I don't remember saying I invented any new bacteria species. I do remember saying that I have read published scientific articles detailing aerobic bacteria species that were documented to directly convert nitrite to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide. But I took no credit for those identifications, I was only trying to explain possible theories about how the ammonia can be transformed to nitrite and the nitrite transformed without making any measurable nitrate in some of my biofilter tests. “
Which is it? Are we proving that the nitrification cycle can be fast tracked or that other species can be cultivated that work faster/better than the traditional ones?
Also while we are covering this, you seem to feel that salt is all that is needed to protect koi from nitrite and if salt is there, the fish are fine. Is it your opinion that brown blood disease is the only negative effect from nitrite exposure? Do you feel that there is no other stressor effect from high nitrite other than the hemoglobin/methemoglobin story?
JR
By the way Roddy, is it me or is this 24 hour fast cycling thing changing?? I noticed once before that you are now talking about nitrite lasting several days? If you would patronize me for a moment-
if the definition of a cycle- fast or not- is when ammonia is all converted to nitrAte on a instantaneous and ongoing basis, where is the END of this Roddy ‘fast’ cycle?? I’m beginning to think that you are just misinterpreting where the cycle ends? If you go back and study the graph I posted for you and Roark, you will see that ammonia begins to drop quickly in all cycles. Then as I have stated in number of times already, the nitrite comes on quickly and holds until the second stage nitrifiers are able to grow past the ammonia inhibiting effects.
So is the definition of a ‘fast’ cycle now when the ammonia drops by a factor of ten and you can add salt so that the nitrite does not kill the fish? JR
Roark
06-21-2005, 10:19 PM
Just for grins I re-read this entire exchange from Post #1 to Post #225. To be clear, I want to ask JR one question:
JR, is it your official position that it is impossible for a "new" filter to convert ammonia to nitrite to nitrate in three days regardless what we add? What I mean by this question is you believe it is impossible to have essentially no remaining ammonia or nitrite while at the same time having measurable nitrates after 3 days?
Not trying to be an arse here, but we've covered a lot of ground in this debate and I want to be crystal clear.
Roark
Roddy Conrad
06-22-2005, 06:24 AM
" #224 9 Hours Ago
JPR
The Real Koi Judge Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,342
Roddrick, to answer your first question to me- why out of the sun? I don’t want the results of the two parallel experiments to be effected by :
1) temperature fluctuation from full sun light through the day
2) algae growth effecting the ammonia levels
3) any controversy regarding the inhibition of nitrifier growth caused by bright sunlight and UV."
Well, JR, if you are so worried about sunlight and algae converting the ammonia, perhaps you are going to tell us next it is only the Aquascapes folks who have this ponding thing down right, by adding so many plants the koi never have toxic water in a brand new pond which is installed in only a few days?
Roark, you haven't answered the last few questions I've asked you. When you do, I'll be happy to answer yours. I am trying to get a clear picture of what you all believe. What I believe is not important right now as the evidence I presented from the greater scientific community was scoffed at as just so much book nonsense. You two clarify your positions so that there are no misunderstandings. I've said all along that you two are misinterpreting what you are seeing. I've reposted the classic cycle here a second time for you to study. Then answer my last few questions.
Roddy, you asked me why so I told ya. You don't seem to be aware of the universal myth in this hobby, the aquarium hobby and some old literature about sunlight and nitrifiers. It is an accepted theory ( and I have some doubts about this one) that sunlight effects the bacteria negatively. Since I have some trouble with the belief ,but know that many many people accept it as gospel, I decided to remove it from the list of variables. In the case of temperature change , my concerns about strong July sun hitting 400 gallons of water at high noon are well founded. The swing in temperature is undesirable when it comes to recreating the classic cycle in the control tank #2.
And finally, algae can reproduce very very rapidly. I do not want algae activity or green water to disrupt the bacteria study in any way- major or minor. So save the ridicule for another post please. And please answer my questions, they were asked in good faith. I honestly don't think you understand what the nitrification cycle encompasses? And this is likely at the heart of our disagreement. Again, in sampler form:
1) do you believe that the definition of a 'fast' nitrification cycle is when ammonia drops by a factor of ten? ( I notice that you have segmented/ truncated the nitrite phase as kinda a secondary thing to the fast cycle)
2) do you believe that high nitrite levels are not a stress issue if salt is in the water?
JR
Roark
06-22-2005, 10:23 AM
Roark, you haven't answered the last few questions I've asked you. When you do, I'll be happy to answer yours. I am trying to get a clear picture of what you all believe. What I believe is not important right now as the evidence I presented from the greater scientific community was scoffed at as just so much book nonsense. You two clarify your positions so that there are no misunderstandings. I've said all along that you two are misinterpreting what you are seeing. I've reposted the classic cycle here a second time for you to study. Then answer my last few questions. JR
I guess I must have missed the questions.
No matter. If it's taken you this long to get the pieces together for such a simple experiment, it's pretty clear you're sandbagging. :) :) :) :) At my house this would have been a 30 minute project to construct. You should have been done with the experiment by now, the results tabulated, and a second set of experiments (or third set!) already underway. All you needed was a container, a pump, some lava rock, and a few simple compounds available locally.
Just do the experiment. Time enough to haggle over things after you've gotten some results.
I'm off to Florida, presumably to hide under St. Stevens skirt. No computer access. No phone (ok, I lied on this one), etc. Hopefully you'll have some results to share when I get back.
Roark
I'm taking two weeks and I'm sand bagging? What a joke! You two have been futzzing with this 'home chemistry kits' stuff for years and you still can't figure out what you're looking at!! Be patient, mooch a little down Florida way and I'll have something for you both soon enough.
Lowly lab tech
Roddy Conrad
06-22-2005, 05:02 PM
High nitrites for only 3 or 4 days with a moderate amount of salt in the water is not going to hurt the koi in any noticeable way.
Like I have said a number of times, I have done at least 50 of these virgin cycle experiments over the last 6 years or so. In the buttermilk/sugar/baking soda days, filters did dependably cycle overnight, but then a 100% water change was required, and that technology can NOT be practiced with fish present, they will all die for sure. The reason for the overnight cycle was explained by the local biochemist as advanced chemicals in the bacteria multiplication cycles were already synthesized and "ready to go". But, as I said before, I don't think that is good technology to practice and teach, because it is too easy to mess up and kill the fish.
So we come to the baking soda/Koi Clay/trickle tower/sunlight technology. At my normal 200 to 500 ppm alkalinity from baking soda, with two cups of koi clay per 1000 gallons added AT THE SAME TIME AS THE AMMONIA CHARGE, and with 100 to 120 ppm hardness provided by calcium chloride and Epsom salt, the ammonia takes from 2 to 4 days to drop from an initial dose of 2 ppm to less than 0.2 ppm in sunlight, and 4 to 6 days indoors with no sunlight. Nitrite takes 3 to 5 more days, after the drop in ammonia, to reach low levels.
Let's put this is some perspective.
When I first started keeping koi, the original old bubble bead filter was all the rage at koi meetings as the filter to buy, it would do the job. So I bought a 2.2 cubic feet bubble bead filter and installed it on a 1200 gallon koi pond, with only 25 little fingerling koi in the water. This was the first week in May in my climate when I turned on the "new state of the art system" according to all the folks I had visited in the Louisville, Kentucky, koi club. THREE MONTHS later, the bead filter still had not cycled, the water was still high ammonia and nitrite, and fish were dying from the toxic water. I had added all the bottled bugs for sale, none of them had done any good at all. No one told me that bead filters required a minimum of 150 ppm alkalinity to do the biofiltration, and my local water alkalinity is quite low. So no biofiltration for three months, dead fish. At that point, I installed a lava rock fountain from Nevada Water Gardens, and the ammonia and nitrite went to zero in exactly 24 hours from turning it on, no alkalinity change. That made a believer out of me in lava rock trickle towers. And it convinved me others in the hobby could use some lessons in trickle tower technology, the effect of alkalinity on biofiltration, and some other stuff I learned along the way.
And I have done all those filter tests to educate myself, because I know for sure most of the stuff in the books does not apply to the real everyday situation in the koi hobby.
Sunlight helps trickle tower work faster and better; I have done enough test work to be convinced of that from my own data. So yours won't be cycling as fast as mine if you hide them from the sun. If there is some plant growth here and there to help the biofiltration along, so is there in 99.999% of all ponders situations, practically no one (except JR) hides biofilters for an outside koi pond in the basement of the house.
Higher alkalinity from baking soda helps biofiltration go better and faster, if something else is used to kick up alkalinity other than baking soda, it won't work as well, since the pH of 8.3 maintained by a high baking soda levels is the exact pH value where many aquaculture research experiments show biofiltraiton, especially for nitrite conversion, is optimized.
Koi Clay helps biofiltration go faster and to higher capacity. I don't know which of several theories is right about why that works so well. Theory One is the trace mineral content helps the bacteria multiply. Theory two is the Koi Clay brings some actual biofiltration bacteria in for a jump start. Theory three is the Koi Clay helps algae grow on the walls of the pond and open sided lava rock trickle tower in the sunlight, and I definitely do see some green algae very quickly in many of my virgin cycle experiments in the sunlight.
Do everything the same, but submerge the filtration media, and my tests results are 4 time longer to cycle for both ammonia and nitrite.
Smoke it, spit it out, swallow it, eat it, throw it up, salute it, ridicule it, nuke it, burn it, do anything you want with it. I am simply trying to avoid other hobbyists having months of dead fish they way I did my first summer of koi ponding. And that is what is likely to happen if they use submerged media filtration, no aeration of the submerged media, no koi clay addition, and low alkalinity in the pond water.
Good post Roddy and I think I now understand. I'll repeat the tests but with a little more of a 'devil's advocate' approach. One question- as I now understand it, you get ammonia down in day one, nitrite down 4-5 days later. When do you get your first nitrate readings?
And I will take from this post that you do believe bacteria and biofilm establishment in a virgin system can be brought into equilibrium with a full charge of nutrient in not one day, but 5 to 6 days. Because that would be the point where nitrite disappears and nitrate becomes the end product.
Also on the nitrite thing, you should be aware that the Bible of fish medicine written by Stoskopf states that low levels of nitrite will cause bacterial infections. This notion is repeated in Diseases of Carp under environmentally induced diseases. It suggests that nitrite is a muscle relaxant and vasodilator and it is suggested that can cause cardiac arrest in exposed fish. And finally a few aquaculture Vet text books talk about gill abnormality from chronic nitrite exposes. So I don't think you should just shrug off the nitrite so easily where beginners are concerned.
Lowly lab tech and reader of books.
Roddy Conrad
06-23-2005, 06:15 AM
Yes, chronic high nitrite levels can cause sick fish. But if the nitrite spike only lasts a few days, and there is moderate salt level in the water, it would be rare for the fish to get sick from it.
One of the local pet stores asked me to help them with an 8 foot by 8 foot by two feet deep temporary display tank of koi in their store one summer. They overstocked it chronically, of course, and only used one of the cheap ($69) green drum filters for its filtration. The nitrites ran 10 to 15 ppm all summer long. I kept the salt level up to 0.5%, and none of the koi in the tank showed any signs of illness all summer. Some of the koi were exposed to the 10 to 15 ppm nitrite, at the 0.5% salt, for over 45 days without showing any visible signs of illness of any kind.
So I don't think ~5 days of a nitrite spike is likely to hurt the fish with a moderate salt level.
Those who post dying fish with 0.5 ppm nitrite levels are more likely having a severe problem with undiagnosed parasites or viruses, IMO.
stephen
07-04-2005, 01:39 PM
Bump
Drippin' guy
07-07-2005, 01:28 PM
What happened to all the test results?
auntiesue
07-08-2005, 01:13 AM
Roddy, am I to understand that if I already have a high KH level in my water, then adding Koi Clay is all I should need to help speed the process along? My new pond(10,500) started to show a slight ammonia reading today. PH is a rock solid 8.4. 11 fish introduced over the last 10 day period. No ammonia until today. Will not add anymore fish until things settle down now.
I have 4 Koiboy towers running and a 100 gallon DIY fluid bed with K1 for filtration.
Roddy Conrad
07-08-2005, 06:11 AM
Koi Clay, trickle tower filtratio, and high KH work for me, but my water is also very soft, so the addition of a moderate amount of Epsom salt also helps cycle time with my water source. If your GH is at least 60 ppm, you won't need the Epsom salt.
auntiesue
07-08-2005, 11:16 PM
Then I'm good to go!! Water out of my tap has rocks in it...LOL I started getting a low ammonia reading yesterday. Added a ton of clay. Today the ammonia is about the same,no higher SO FAR. Nitrites are starting to climb already also. That started today. There was no measurable nitrite yesterday. I may consider adding salt tomorrow to .15% just to ride out the nitrites as you mentioned that could hang on for 5-6 days if my system cycles as expected. We shall see!! Fish seem happy so far.
EDIT: One more note: My Bakki Showers are located in the shade, not full sun so this will effect the results.
auntiesue
07-10-2005, 01:48 PM
Today test results are ZERO ammonia, 12.5 nitrite (added salt - 120 pounds - will test later today to see if I hit the mark), nitrates starting to appear in tests. KH really dropped down. :eek: :eek: Will add baking soda to get that back up where it should be. Boy a new filter sure eats up the bicarbonates in the water FAST!!!
Cleaned the sump out yesterday. Lots of fine sandy-silt in there. Pond water looks much better today.
Doug Mc
07-20-2005, 10:51 PM
Bump !
auntiesue
07-21-2005, 01:30 AM
Yeah guys!! What's the outcome of the trials? My pond seems to be fully cycled considering it's still new and has a ways to go yet before it matures. Test reading have been: Ammonia = zero; Nitrite = 0; Nitrate = 12.5 and holding still for over a week now. I'm hoping the bakki showers drop that down soon. The media in that system is still pretty white. This didn't take long at all to cycle and the fish seem unaffected by it all.
Had a pump go south on me the other day while I was gone. Got it working again many hours later, but in the meantime the pond started to go green <g>. So I've got a bit of an algae bloom happening again. If it clears as quickly as the first one did all should be good in about a week. Occupancy is now 15 medium to large koi.
Sue, if you are talking to me, I'm still in play! To really understand what's going on and so that we can have a rational, factual explanation of the R&R team's observations, I have to surround the initial experiment with several other demonstrations of performance under different conditions. Its like collecting pieces to a larger puzzle. I have some answers already but no need to rush in. Lots of summer weather left to play in!
JR
stephen
09-01-2005, 09:07 PM
Bump:)
gander
09-01-2005, 09:10 PM
you win Roddy :D: :D: :D:
Cowiche Ponder
09-01-2005, 11:34 PM
OK I only will have a very short time to cycle my filter... probably won't cycle all the way even. All depends on the weather...
Need to get a biowave up and going biologically...
Roddy Conrad
09-02-2005, 06:46 PM
Just for kicks, when I paid $850 for a total of 7 lovely koi from Brady Brandwood in late February and picked them up, I put that population through cycling virgin filter twice. Once as soon as they came through my door in late February, and again in April when I took them to an alternate outside location.
Both times I used homemade DIY shower filters with "virgin" lava rock in plastic bags from the local Lowes building supply store. Both times I saw ammonia and nitrite spikes, which were gone in the customary 10 days to give non-detectable ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate when a decent shower or trickle tower virgin filter is in service.
Okay, I realize JR is trying to figure out some contraption that "looks like" a shower filter but won't cycle so fast. And he will publish his results proving he was right. But in my yard, with my filters, the fast cycling is very reproducible. If it does not work for you, there is something wrong. As it says in the "Course in Miracles", if Miracles are not a part of your everyday life, then you are going the wrong path. Lizzie and I like our paths, and plan to continue with our daily Miracles.
auntiesue
09-02-2005, 10:26 PM
I have no idea what others may find when attempting this "fast cycling", but my new pond cycled, using this approach, in less than 2 weeks (about 10 days to be exact), maybe less if I had watched it more carefully. Granted the system had run for not quite a week before I added fish, but nonetheless, this is the first time I've ever had a filter get up to speed in this short a time frame. Within 2 weeks the 10,000 gallon pond was fully stocked with 20 fish and I had zero readings for ammonia, nitrites and <.15 for Nitrates. The pond has been running now since the middle of June and I have not seen any deviation from these numbers since the pond settled down. Considering my personal experience using Roddy's approach, I don't give a rip why it works, I just know that it seems to. Made me a believer Roddy!!!
Roddy Conrad
09-02-2005, 11:06 PM
Sue, welcome to the group which welcomes and uses "Miracles", no matter what form they take, and no matter how one chooses to explain them. Our fish appreciate our positive attitudes and our DIY knowhow in our ponding hobby.
You are a member of the Oklahoma Koi Society but live in MN? I grew up on a sandhill farm a half mile from Davidson, Oklahoma (at the Red River border with Texas), and enjoyed 4 years of undergraduate work at Southwestern State University in Weatherford.
auntiesue
09-02-2005, 11:20 PM
If it makes sense (common sense) to me I'm willing to try anything and this approach could cause no harm so why not give it a try? I was really amazed at it's success. Thank you for posting this information. I'll recommend this to anyone that I know that is starting up a new pond. It's nice to understand the "science", but sometimes that's just not possible or far beyond my level of understanding. Bottom line, it worked for me. Our babies came through the new pond syndrome very nicely and kept their quality and I saw no signs of stress.
I'm not from OK nor am I familiar with much of the area. I belong to the OK Koi Society because a dear friend of mine saved me from pond hell many many years ago when I first started keeping my first small pond. He belongs to this club. After a few years of email communication and listening to his advice, DH and I decided we simply must meet this man. So off to OK we went for their koi show. It was my very first show and I was allowed to help set up. JR was the judge. What a weekend that was!!! We were hooked and joined right away and have tried to get down there every year since then. Missed only one year (2004) since that first visit. This year they didn't have their show - moved it to the spring :( :rolleyes: I consider the OK show my "home base" for shows. I guess you never forget your first!! :D: I learned so much about koi with JR being the judge that year.
stephen
11-15-2005, 04:57 PM
bump