# Theory in question.



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

I've been thinking about this for a while. So far, I'm the only one that I've heard of who's suggested this, so I'm not sure just how crazy or "out there" the idea is. Just follow along with me.

When you feed your fish, they breakdown the food, and turn it into waste. They also leave behind food, that gets the same fate as the waste. All the wastes excreted from the fish, uneaten food, and decaying plants, stay inside the tank. If nothing eliminates those wastes, they would quickly build up, and eventually harm your fish. Obviously, filters, live plants, protein skimmers, UV sterilizers, etc., can combat this buildup, but my question is this: 

After being either left behind or pooped out, the biologic material gets decomposed by fungi and bacteria, and turned into ammonia. From here, through the nitrite bacteria, nitrite, nitrate bacteria, nitrate, blah blah blah. Usually, the nitrate is broken down by a sophisticated system, reduced by anaerobic denitrifying bacteria, and turned to free nitrogen. But what if it isn't? Can this whole cycle create its own resistance by catching the nitrogen in the tank? If the free nitrogen/nitrates before being broken down gets somehow trapped inside the water, would it actually slow down the cycle, or what it just keep building up and building up? The reason I ask is because if this is true, then having live plants to break down the nitrates into food for themselves, should, (based on an equal and opposite chemical reaction), actually speed up the nitrogen cycle? It's an exiting thought for me, maybe because of my obsession with the chemical side of aquatic habitats. Don't just write this off and say something to the affect of "it doesn't matter," or, "there's no such thing as chemical resistance; it's only a theory." This is something serious that can really help us (aquarium lovers) in the future.

I'm really looking forward to you all's opinions on this matter. Again, don't just write this off, it can be monumental what could come from a finding like this!


----------



## J4C8_GreenGo (May 19, 2013)

Okay, this is interesting and intriguing. If this is true, then putting plants in a cycling aquarium could radically improve the nitrogen cycle time! Wow, now you've got me intrigued. I'll try to do more research on the subject. I am excited to learn what you/we find out, and what others say/think, and what the implications are!


----------



## jamnigh (Apr 24, 2013)

In theory then....wouldn't adding live plants then also increase water quality and, in theory, reduce the need for water changes?


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Search "silent cycle".I believe this is what cycling with plants is called.


----------



## jamnigh (Apr 24, 2013)

Very interesting indeed!!!!


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

I like to think of it as a sort of aquarium metabolism. The more outlets for bad materials you get (live plants, chemical filtration, etc.), the faster the system runs. The more bad stuff it can process at the same time. We've known for years that plants improve water quality and help to reduce the harmful nitrates and such that gets introduced to the tank by the fish and food, but the possibility that they are actually able to speed up the overall process of getting rid of these bad chemicals, this includes for other means, such as the filtration, UV sterilizers, whatever you have. It's kind of cool.


----------



## jamnigh (Apr 24, 2013)

I agree, it is really cool. Its amazing at how there is so much more to fish tanks than just fish and water. There is a whole biology behind it, and learning it makes the whole thing even more fun and breathtaking.


----------



## majerah1 (Oct 29, 2010)

I silent cycle my tanks. They are all planted with low stocking.


----------



## WheeledGoat (Jan 29, 2013)

Do I understand you to mean that if you don't remove the free nitrogen and allow it to build to some concentration, then because it's at that level, the previous nitrate->nitrogen chemical reaction will be slowed, and the reaction before that will be slowed, all the way back to the food/waste decomposition?

The idea is neat, but I can easily think of many examples in nature and biological processes where this does not happen, as I'm sure you can. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?


----------



## dalfed (Apr 8, 2012)

The only problem is that plants actually prefer ammonia over nitrites or nitrates, so they definitely make your tank safer for the inhabitants they actually slow down the nitrifying cycle, or maybe better put they limit the amount of nitrifying bacteria. There is a great article/ experiment on the web (that I can't find right now but will link it when I do) that talks about this.


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

WheeledGoat said:


> Do I understand you to mean that if you don't remove the free nitrogen and allow it to build to some concentration, then because it's at that level, the previous nitrate->nitrogen chemical reaction will be slowed, and the reaction before that will be slowed, all the way back to the food/waste decomposition?
> 
> The idea is neat, but I can easily think of many examples in nature and biological processes where this does not happen, as I'm sure you can. Maybe I'm misunderstanding?



You have it almost right. What I've found through my exhaustive equations is that there is only so much space for broken down food and waste, and even ammonia, nitrates, and nitrogen to go. Basically I'm saying that if you add more places for it to go, (plants, UV sterilizers, protein skimmers, etc.) it will go faster, speeding up the "metabolism" of the tank. It seems simple. Most would say "duhh, the more plants you have, the faster the poop will disappear." But when you think about equal and opposite reactions (which doesn't just apply to physical energy; it applies to chemical reactions, too), it must also slow down the breakdown of those biological materials, rather than all of it breaking down and building up chemicals in the tank. It's either/or.

Pretend there is a tank with fish in it. The fish poop, and excess food fall to the bottom of the tank. There is no filter, no poop eating fish, no live plants, etc. There is, in other words, no release for the free nitrogen produced by the breakdown of biological material. 

So, when the fish poop and food is broken down, it eventually turns into either free nitrogen (normally taken by the plants, or filter), nitrates, ammonia, etc. If there is no filter, no live plants, etc., where will the remaining ammonia, nitrates, free nitrogen go? Nowhere! Yes, a small amount can be dissolved in the air above the water, but not nearly enough to prevent buildup. That's why we use filters and plants ans stuff. 

Therefore, the nitrogen, ammonia, nitrates, etc. will buildup in the tank. The theory lies here. Does the biological material keep breaking down, and keep building up nitrogen and nitrates and ammonia, and all those nasty things in the tank forever, or does it eventually stop? 

In my experience and long tests, it slows down. The biological material even stops breaking down! (Well, it slows down so much that you would never be able to get testable results from the broken down chemicals from the material). Now the question is this: Why is there resistance? If it's not resistance, why does the breakdown of material slow down so much. 

It's easy to say that it's just the way it happens, but there is something serious going on. Something serious enough to prevent the breakdown of natural, biological material. If we could find out exactly why the conditions in a tank affect this sort of "metabolism," or speed of biological breakdown, and scale it up safely, we may even be able to create a natural supplement that will speed up the breakdown, and prevent ugly poop and excess food building up in the substrate before it breaks down. 

You are all right; it's very breathtaking, all the things that microscopically, but substantially affects how things happen in a tank. This right here is the future of aquarium maintenance. I just wish there was some way I could do a large scale test of the breakdown to find out what's really going on, because saying that the bacteria eats the ammonia is just so vague. 

Will update with more test results later.


----------



## Jaybird5 (Apr 27, 2013)

I thought the only way to remove nitrates was too perform water changes.


----------



## dalfed (Apr 8, 2012)

Just a thought from minimal knowledge base on the subject, you may reach peak levels as far as breakdown biologically but the breakdown will be taken over by yeasts and molds which will not do a nitrification breakdown (no reading of ammonia, nitrites and nitrates) but all yeasts and molds that I am aware of cause harm to inhabitants of aquariums. So are you looking for a yeast or a mold that can live with aquarium creatures?


----------



## WheeledGoat (Jan 29, 2013)

MattSidedish said:


> Does the biological material keep breaking down, and keep building up nitrogen and nitrates and ammonia, and all those nasty things in the tank forever, or does it eventually stop?
> 
> In my experience and long tests, it slows down.


granted I haven't done any "exhaustive equations" like you have, but my gut tells me that to get to a concentration where you're slowing down the chemical reaction, you are *long* past conditions healthy for tank inhabitants.

in your experience and long tests, at what ppm did you observe the slow down?


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

WheeledGoat said:


> granted I haven't done any "exhaustive equations" like you have, but my gut tells me that to get to a concentration where you're slowing down the chemical reaction, you are *long* past conditions healthy for tank inhabitants.
> 
> in your experience and long tests, at what ppm did you observe the slow down?


Well, the ammonia was roughly in the 150's, and the nitrates were in the 400's. This particular test was conducted over a month in a half of serious contamination, and I can't remember who said it, but no, there were no live inhabitants. You may consider me a crazy scientist (though I'm not a scientist by any means), but I would never, ever but my animals at risk for some stupid theory that I'm trying to prove. No creature's life (or pain and suffering) is worth any amount of knowledge.

Anyways, the point isn't necessarily about the resistance, so much as about the equally opposite situation (as Newton's third law of action states), which would conclude, based on the resistance, that you can actually speed up the breakdown of materials. Now I'm trying to figure out an all natural way to make this happen.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

newtons third law doesnt really apply here. there is no equal and opposite reaction for a chemical process.

the third law of thermodynamics does apply though, which states that entropy of a perfect crystal will be zero at absolute zero, or in other words, entropy takes place in the presence of heat, such as in water.


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

Auban said:


> newtons third law doesnt really apply here. there is no equal and opposite reaction for a chemical process.
> 
> the third law of thermodynamics does apply though, which states that entropy of a perfect crystal will be zero at absolute zero, or in other words, entropy takes place in the presence of heat, such as in water.


I couldn't disagree more. While the law is/was made to reflect physical motion of objects, it can apply to many things. In chemistry, we can define it as not an "equal" and opposite reaction after an action, but more of a proportionate reaction from an action. 

A very generic example is this:

If you raise the biological load (fish) of an aquarium by double, all things being equal, meaning you don't change your filter, lighting, temp, treatments, etc, your ammonia levels may increase by a fourth. REMEMBER this is just an example. If the above happens, then raising your biological load from the same original amount, but by 4 times, should increase your ammonia by double. 

The issue we face in aquarium chemistry is that we (aquarium owners) face is that we never feed the exact same amount every time, or at the same time, or get the same temperature patterns every day, and stuff like that.

Chemical levels are proportionate. They always will be unless the conditions or the chemicals themselves change. I should have mentioned this in the first post. Maybe I shouldn't put out all this random information. I thought it may be of interest to you guys. 

Anyways, this theory isn't about the reaction itself, (being how and to what proportion the plants "digest" the biological material at the bottom of the tank. The point is observing how we can increase the "digestion" period. (I know it's not real digestion. Notice the """"s) Yes, we can increase the amount, weight, or volume of material "digested," by adding more plants and biological wastes-eating fish, but the question is how can we actually speed up the process of how one plant does the process. 

I'm currently running 12, ten gallon aquariums with one plant in each. Same species, age, and size. They also all have tiny "Whisper" filters in them. I'm adding different types of biological materials to see how quickly they are "gotten rid of." The only issue is trying to figure out exactly when all the material gets eaten/absorbed by the plant. This can be done, in part, by water parameters, but it won't catch all of it. Still waiting for results.


----------



## Arthur7 (Feb 22, 2013)

Is there a closed, self-regulating aquarium? In the 70s in our old club we had such an issue. There was talk about protein degradation, ammonium, nitrite, nitrate, plant nutrients, etc. In the end we had one result: Yes, these events are present but too small for our purpose. For large aquariums slightly detectable in small aquariums less or not at all. In each aquarium, the water stress increases. Water exchange is required.
Then no more was said about it.
How much and how often to change water? It is dependent on the fish stock, the size and the feeding. A professional breeder has recommended to me in the 80s, I will measure my water stress regularly. Now I needed a suitable device.
It was an analog comparator of electrical resistors, as a Weatston'sche bridge. The first resistance was the water column between the mercury-calomel electrode. The other is a Precision low-measuring potentiometer. On a micro-amperemeter you saw the cross-flow. The potentiometer has been changed until the current was zero. Then they both had the same value resistors.
Now one could read on the scale the megohms. It was easy to be converted to microsiemens.
The electrodes were expensive and hard to get. They had to be carefully kept. The whole procedure was a bit difficult. The device was also heavy. Since I have not measured as often as I should have been measured. But it was helpful.
When I re-started in ’07, I bought a TDS meter. The use is very simple. Approximately every 10 days I go with a list of all aquarium and look after the ppm. I have set a limit: 200 ppm. If an aquarium is this value I do water changes, about 40%. My water from the tap is 150 ppm. Another one from a natural source is 120 ppm.
I have found here is that the smaller increase more than the big ones. And one more interesting thing. It happened that a tank had become lower. I was surpised. But there was a strong plant growth, little fish and economical feeding. It seems that this was an exceptional case, for fully balanced system. But not for long.
I am very satisfied with the method and have had no problems with the water. I always have a controlled healthy water for all aquarium inhabitants. And the trace elements that may come to the minimum are always complemented by the water change.


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

That's very interesting!! I didn't quite understand how your old water stress device helped you better understand how biological loads affected water parameters, and vice verse, but it was a very cool thought. 

And that story about the planted tank. I had to assume you were referring to ammonia when you mentioned all those reading in ppm, but the levels you listed were ridiculous for ammonia, and the typical hardness isn't measured in ppm, so I can't quite figure out what you were measuring. Maybe the totals for all the parameters? Would be interested in figuring that out. 

Nice tests!


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

Aurturs levels he mentioned(using a TDS meter ) are Total Dissolved Solids.A measurement usually only used on reverse osmosis water systems to measure ALL dissolved solids in water column.It is a true measurement of how clean water is.My RO/DI filter produces water with 0 tds.
TDS , what does it mean and why should i test? | The Aquarium Solution (US)


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

i think im getting what you are trying to say, but it seems to me that you are trying to explain chemistry with physics terms, which leaves me scratching my head. 

ok, if you want plants to absorb nitrogen faster, you have to give them more of whatever their limiting factor is. generally speaking, that is CO2(and sometimes also carbonates) and light for aquatic plants. increase CO2 and they can utilize more light. once they are no longer limited by CO2, give them enough light and they will not be limited by either. once they are no longer limited by light or CO2, then they will begin to be limited by the other nutrients, which usually ends up being nitrogen and phosphorus. 

most plants prefer to uptake of ammonia to the other forms of nitrogen. 

now, as for the ammonia readings going up by a decreasing ratio to the proportion of waste, its not because of a chemical resistance. if you have minimal surface area, there will be very few colonization points for the bacteria that are capable of nitrification and de-nitrification. regardless of how much area you have for colonizing bacteria, you will reach a limit, since those beneficial bacteria have limits too. the bacteria will continue to rise in the presence of new ammonia until they become limited by either ammonia or other nutrients. when you double the bioload, you will increase the overall food for the bacteria by 100%, but that doesnt mean there will be enough surface area or other nutrients for them to advance their numbers to the point where the system is in balance again.

at a certain point, a plant wont grow any faster, and at a certain point, you wont get any more bacteria. now, bacteria also need other things than nitrogenous compounds to thrive, and if the nutrients are not present in sufficient quantities, then they will be limited.


if you want a tank that can run at its maximum potential with the fewest water changes, then you have to find something that can sequester nitrogen in all its forms AND support a lot of bacteria. as far as i have been able to tell, the best candidate for this is a combination of algae and cyano-bacteria. many types of cyano can live off of atmospheric nitrogen(something plants generally cannot do) and algae is an obvious choice because it is, generally speaking, not limited in the same ways plants are. by that, i mean that its cells can continuously divide, it constantly adds mass, which means it constantly sequesters nitrogen and other nutrients. plants reach a limit after a certain point.

to this end, i have been able to successfully raise 200 inches of fish in a five gallon tank without waterchanges, with no ammonia readings. its not exactly pretty though, as its basically a five gallon tank slammed full of hair algae. great for breeding fish.

at a certain point, you will have to focus on biologically enducing your system to sequestering nutrients faster than is natural for them. 

so, to take care of the fish, you have to cater to the system.

eventually you will still have to do water changes though, since salts are stubbornly difficult to remove from the water.


----------



## Arthur7 (Feb 22, 2013)

Thanks for the link (TDS , what does it...)


----------



## Raymond S. (Jan 11, 2013)

Finally...Auban has presented support for my insanity...thank you Auban. I keep algae in my tanks intentionally. No one cleans the algae off the rocks etc in streams/ponds etc.
I therefor consider it "natural" looking and to that end have covered the walls of my tanks with fine gravel to give the algae something to cling to. As every inside surface
of the tank is part of the bio-filter, this must increase the bio-filter aria many times over at first before the algae covers it. More on this later.
The process I read about this cycle is this. The fish waste/decaying plant matter produces ammonia which beneficial bacteria break down into nitrites. More beneficial
bacteria(but a different kind then break down the nitrites into nitrates. This is what remains in the water and builds up if "we" don't do water changes.
In the opening post, it was stated that nitrates are broken down by...into free nitrogen. A statement I've never heard of before. No article I've read on "the cycle" says anything about the nitrates being broken down further, but rather building up and becoming an issue if not removed by water changes.
It would seem that if this does actually happen(which I do not doubt...but) that it happens at rates so slow that the people who wrote the articles I've read felt no
need to mention it in their articles about the ammonia/nitrite/nitrate process.
No not a change in subject...when you burn wood for example...it is broken down chemically. Those parts which are consumable are and what is not remains.
Although decomposition takes far more time I see no reason why it eventually won't come to a final conclusion also. Thus rendering the remains incapable of
further causing issues.
I have sought articles which list plants that use nitrates with little luck as most say that plants prefer ammonia over nitrates. However there was one article which
stated that the "Giant Duckweed" does show effects on both under tests. So I got some through e-bay. They grow much slower than regular duck weed and are
much more easy to remove when they get overstocked. And as most know that floating plants consume their food directly from the water instead of from the
substrate, I now keep one or two small water sprite plants plus these Giant duckweed in both tanks. I just limit the amount of the duckweed to edges of the
surface.
And now that Auban has made the reference to his "slammed full of hair algae" tank, I feel justified in keeping my tanks "stocked"with algae also in addition to
the floating plants...all of which consume that witch is not wanted in my tanks.


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

Auban, you have simply given a more-detailed restatement of what I've tried to "dumb-down" to get people to understand here. That whole endless cycle of limiting factors is what I'm trying to overcome. Rather than fight co2, phosphorus, salts, ammonia, etc., I am looking for an additive to create the tolerance of such chemicals for the plant, so that it can do it's job without so much interference. 

By the way, I'm not using physics terms. The whole "equal and opposite reaction" things is/was just an example of how I'm not trying to do one thing, but the exact opposite so that I can get opposite effects. 

I appreciate the thought, though what you said was what I've been getting at the whole time. Now the question remains:

What will work to help certain plants breakdown/absorb biological material faster?

Update on the multiple factors test, (what I've been calling it), the tanks are finally ready for a second test. Forgot to add to the forums that the whole test was interrupted by a power outage that went on and off for days. Power would be on for an hour, off for three hours, on for two, etc. I'm currently finishing up the tanks with new water. Thursday, I add the plants, and introduce live bacteria. Friday, I add different chemicals, some being biological material, others being man-made concentrations of certain chemicals. I've also lowered the number of test tanks to 8.


----------



## Arthur7 (Feb 22, 2013)

MattSidedish said:


> That's very interesting!! I didn't quite understand how your old water stress device helped you better understand how biological loads affected water parameters, and vice verse, but it was a very cool thought.
> 
> And that story about the planted tank. I had to assume you were referring to ammonia when you mentioned all those reading in ppm, but the levels you listed were ridiculous for ammonia, and the typical hardness isn't measured in ppm, so I can't quite figure out what you were measuring. Maybe the totals for all the parameters? Would be interested in figuring that out.
> 
> Nice tests!


So, of course, the TDS of the total dissolved solids meter is measured. And, if this is kept low, the individual may not be higher. In the operating instructions of the device relative to a hardness and conductivity is given.
If the pH rises (7,5 or 8) no longer arises ammonium, but amoniak. Which is very toxic. This danger does not exist if the overall level is low.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

MattSidedish said:


> Rather than fight co2, phosphorus, salts, ammonia, etc., I am looking for an additive to create the tolerance of such chemicals for the plant, so that it can do it's job without so much interference.
> *the only thing you listed that interferes with plants doing their jobs is salts. the rest of them are fertilizers. when they are limited by something though, they dont grow so well.*
> 
> 
> ...



by the way, i think you would be interested in a couple books: Limnology, lake and river ecosystems, by Wetzel, and G. Evelyn Hutchinsons three volume series "treatise on limnology."

its and undergraduate level read, so it may be a bit of a challenge at first, but will leave you with a very good understanding of limnology (study of inland water systems).


----------



## Reefing Madness (Aug 12, 2011)

You guys are killin me here. Why is it you take something so freakin simple and make it into a pile of rubble people don't understand?? 
Don't get me started here!


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

I'm beginning to think reffing is right. This stuff is fun and all, but eventually, we'll be back to where we started. The point of all the craziness is to hopefully eventually solve the problem. And Auban, if you read what I said 

"The whole "equal and opposite reaction" things is/was just an example of how I'm not trying to do one thing, but the exact opposite so that I can get opposite effects."

Another issue with my test. Haven't even made it to the bacterial stage yet and my main air supply (PVC joints throughout) has, all of a sudden, opened up some volume I didn't know about, and the pump can't fill it enough to create pressure. Working on it, though it's going to seriously mess everything up having aeration in half my setup. Thinking about ending it and doing something smaller scale, though this was the small scale. Also, Auban, I was going to add my little charts from Excel but didn't have time. In the past couple of weeks, my college class, work, and family stuff is killing my personal time. Will surely work on that.


----------



## Reefing Madness (Aug 12, 2011)

Tell you what. Throw in a large enough Algae Turf Scrubber and call it a day. Nothing works better. But, its gotta be proportionate to the system size. Game over. =)


----------



## coralbandit (Jul 29, 2012)

1^ with Madness.It (the turf scrubber)actually goes inline with Aubans suggestion of algae being best plant.
With mechanical isssues and natural effects(power outages) accurate "testing" seems like it will be diffacult for you.
I'll say there are bacteria solutions that "claim" no waterchange needed for 1 year gaurenteed;AquaBella Bio-Enzyme for Fresh and Saltwater Tank » Cycling your Aquarium with AquaBella Bio-Enzyme.
Even if this product only cost $1 I wouldn't bother with it as I am old school and sucessful;I CHANGE WATER!Every tank with the exception of marine systems need water changed regulary.Possibly implementing all the filtering techniques of a full marine set up would help with fresh water systems(I run wet dry{sumps}) on all my DT's) ,but know that protien skimmers won't run near peak effectiveness without ozone.Aurthur had good input on the TDS and would wonder if you understand OPR as a measurement of water clarity.
I'll add that 10g tanks are a little small and would/could easily go haywire with 1 drop too much or too little of your "nutrient "test.
Have you trie FSB(fluidised sand bed) filters?


----------



## MattSidedish (May 1, 2013)

Well, all those things are true. The tanks are small so that I'll get a more clear result on how the water was affected. No, I don't have any, nor have had any sand filters. I have a cousin who really believes in the agitated sand filters. He runs the sand in his sump, with agitators at the bottom of the sump. He says he gets alot of leftover particles (waste, etc.) after the sand stange, and he even get's a little sand in the return section of the sump. He has proper agitation, and proper setup of the plexy (making a U-shape, supposedly preventing sand from being able to pass through). He also gets tired of cleaning the sand, which he really shouldn't do, but he does anyways. Anyways, he left the sump at my shop, and I added some little media boxes and more refraction in the plexi, and he says it works alot better now.

Accurate testing has now become impossible due to a power issue. As it turns out, the power outage in my neighborhood was caused by me running a ridiculous amount of air compressors, filters, lights, heaters, plus the rest of my house. Got a new box outside my house, and it's working ok now. Might resume the tests once my work stuff gets started out. I'm the manager at a department store and we're doing a bunch of relays in a department, so it's 14 hour days.


----------



## Auban (Aug 8, 2010)

.هذه الكلمات تقول باستمرار، لا أعتقد أنهم يعني الذي تظن يعني

the agitated sand thing, are you talking about a fluidized bed filter?


----------

