Hi All Just Signed Up Lots Of Questions I Hope You Gurus Can Answer

[TwoTankAmin]

Just a little correction to what Byron posted above:
 

 
The SafeStart is his original biospira formula [if I have the name right] that was sold to Tetra.  It quickens the bacteria seeding but is not an instant cycling supplement.

 
Dr. Hovanec worked at Marineland's labs which is where is developed Bio Spira which was ultimately replaced by One and Only (they are not the same things). As far as I know the Bio Spira patent, or some similar arrangement, was made to sell it. It was still being produced for use in just SW tanks since. I cannot say if it is still available.
 
Marineland was bought out by a conglomerate which also owns Tetra. At that time Dr Hovanec bought the Marineland facility and started his own company which producec Oone and Only. However, I believe the patents, or at least the rights to produce the product, are shared with Tetra. At the outset the two products were similar. Hoever, the now differe in at least one respect. Tetra puts some ammonia in the bottle and Dr Hovanec does not. tetra appears to have made some other modifications.
 
For this reason I always suggest folks use One and Only if at all possible. If one cannot find it, then I suggest Safe Start as the next best choice.
 
Plants do not uptake nitrite, they take in ammonia (as NH4) and/or nitrate. What the do not do is convert ammonia to nitrite.
 
And then re the following:

 
Its possible that my Bacopa plants are removing both Ammonia and Nitrite.

 
Not as far as i am concerned. While it is difficult to find information on the toxicicty of nitrite to aquatic plants or whether they even use it. the literature indicates nitrite is toxic to land plants for sure. in the absence of scinece showing that aquatic plants are completely different in this respect, I believe nitrite is not used by most plants in our tanks.
 

 
The Nitrogen Cycle
Ammonium (NH4+) and nitrate (NO3–) are the predominate inorganic forms of nitrogen in soils. Ammonium exists in exchangeable and nonexchangeable forms. Nitrite (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are present in soil in lesser quantities. Plants normally use nitrogen in only the ammonium and nitrate forms. Nitrite is actually toxic to plants.

from http/passel.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1130447042&topicorder=2&maxto=8
 
The reason planted tanks tend not to show nitrite is due to the fact that when plants uptake ammonium, they do not "spit out" nitrite as the bacterial process does. Combine this with the fact than one of the greatest benefits of seeding bacteria during cycling is the effect on nitrite levels. In a normal plantless cycle with no bacterial seeding it takes a build up of nitrite to start the nitrite bacs reproducing to handle it. With seeding there are nitrite bacs ready and waiting to handle nitrite. They should be present in numbers able to handle whatever nitrite is produced by the ammonia bacteria contained in the starter colonies. So as the nitrite begins to be produced, is is all or almost all consumed. And as the ammonia bacs ramp up to handle higher ammonia levels, so too do the nitrite bacteria. In such cases the differing reproduction times of the two bacteria becomes less consequential and one may never actually see nitrite.

 

[Byron]

TwoTankAmin posted while I was skimming through the linked article, so he has covered things.  But I would like to comment, if for no other reason than to show I am still alive here [TTA knows to what this refers, lol].
 
I said initially that with sufficient plants that were fast growing, you would not see nitrite [TTA has explained why], and possibly not nitrate either though much later when the aquarium biological system is fully established nitrate can occur minimally, depending upon the fish load.  Although I have not read the linked paper in close detail but only cursorily, it would seem their findings agree with my long-held position.  Plants are faster at taking up ammonia than the bacteria, so they do it first.  And the benefit is that nitrite does not result, as TTA indicated too.  Bacopa is a stem plant and thus one of the faster growing plants.
 
I had a discussion with Tom Barr a while back on the ammonia uptake by plants, and I had asked specifically about a situation where a sudden increase in ammonia might occur in a planted tank.  Dr. Barr [I am not certain, but I think his PhD in botany may be achieved?] was unable off the top of his head to give me numbers, but he clearly stated that aquarium plants will take up a considerable amount of ammonia, and more than would ever likely occur even in unusual situations.  However, as I noted earlier, adding pure ammonia is a risk as this is toxic to plants at high levels.  We've probably exhausted that discussion for the present.
 
Last comment, at this stage, given your results which are pretty much what I would have expected, I really would stop adding pure ammonia.  The nitrifying bacteria will develop, this is going to happen in any aquarium, whether or not (and usually "not") you see this with our basic test kits...I never have.
 
Byron.

 

[cl3537]

TwoTankAmin posted while I was skimming through the linked article, so he has covered things.  But I would like to comment, if for no other reason than to show I am still alive here [TTA knows to what this refers, lol].
 
I said initially that with sufficient plants that were fast growing, you would not see nitrite [TTA has explained why], and possibly not nitrate either though much later when the aquarium biological system is fully established nitrate can occur minimally, depending upon the fish load.  Although I have not read the linked paper in close detail but only cursorily, it would seem their findings agree with my long-held position.  Plants are faster at taking up ammonia than the bacteria, so they do it first.  And the benefit is that nitrite does not result, as TTA indicated too.  Bacopa is a stem plant and thus one of the faster growing plants.
 
I had a discussion with Tom Barr a while back on the ammonia uptake by plants, and I had asked specifically about a situation where a sudden increase in ammonia might occur in a planted tank.  Dr. Barr [I am not certain, but I think his PhD in botany may be achieved?] was unable off the top of his head to give me numbers, but he clearly stated that aquarium plants will take up a considerable amount of ammonia, and more than would ever likely occur even in unusual situations.  However, as I noted earlier, adding pure ammonia is a risk as this is toxic to plants at high levels.  We've probably exhausted that discussion for the present.
 
Last comment, at this stage, given your results which are pretty much what I would have expected, I really would stop adding pure ammonia.  The nitrifying bacteria will develop, this is going to happen in any aquarium, whether or not (and usually "not") you see this with our basic test kits...I never have.
 
Byron.

Well unfortunately at this point the tank is at 0.5ppm Ammonia and has not decreased over the last 24 hours. It would appear that the plants were doing the work and the BB have not developed and the TSS probably had negligible effect.
 
In hindsite adding fish and fish food to the planted tank slowly would have been a better option for those who don't want to wait 2 months.  The capacity of the plants I put in (most likely the two types of Bacopa primarily) I planted to remove Ammonia appears substantial (they consumed >1.5ppm Ammonia over 3 days) and more than likely would have been good enough to keep a small bioload from exposing fish to anything harmful in the near term while the BB developed.
 
At this point I will be forced to wait indefinitely until the plants and/or Bacteria consume the remaining added Ammonia in the tank and I do hope this is quicker than several weeks as reported by others for a normal fishless cycle without seed media or plants.
 
On a positive note, since I added Ammonia to the tank the Bacopa has grown much more quickly, almost 5 inches in 3 days, I doubt the Ammonia had a negative impact, it is likely the opposite. 
 


 
 
 
 
 

 

[cl3537]

The reason planted tanks tend not to show nitrite is due to the fact that when plants uptake ammonium, they do not "spit out" nitrite as the bacterial process does. Combine this with the fact than one of the greatest benefits of seeding bacteria during cycling is the effect on nitrite levels. In a normal plantless cycle with no bacterial seeding it takes a build up of nitrite to start the nitrite bacs reproducing to handle it. With seeding there are nitrite bacs ready and waiting to handle nitrite. They should be present in numbers able to handle whatever nitrite is produced by the ammonia bacteria contained in the starter colonies. So as the nitrite begins to be produced, is is all or almost all consumed. And as the ammonia bacs ramp up to handle higher ammonia levels, so too do the nitrite bacteria. In such cases the differing reproduction times of the two bacteria becomes less consequential and one may never actually see nitrite.

 
Thanks for the the explanation for the results in the paper I linked above TTA. As you have explained  the reduced Nitrite spike exhibited from their experiment was likely from a lowering of Ammonia which led to less fuel for Nitrosomonas to produce Nitrite. It wasn't likely from Nitrite uptake by the plants directly.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

On the subject of nitrite uptake by plants...
 
 
http/www.theaquariumwiki.com/Plants_and_Biological_Filtration
This is from the link above, an article written by Diana Walstad
 
[quote[

Nitrite Uptake by Plants
Although plants can use nitrite as an N source, the pertinent question for hobbyists is - Do aquatic plants remove the toxic nitrite before the non-toxic nitrate? I could not find enough studies in the scientific literature to state conclusively that they do. However, the chemical reduction of nitrites to ammonium requires less of the plant’s energy than the chemical reduction of nitrates to ammonium. (A plant must convert both nitrites and nitrates to ammonium before it can use them to make its proteins.) Thus, it is not surprising that when Spirodela oligorrhiza was grown in media containing both nitrate and nitrite, it preferred nitrite (Fig. 3).[/quote]
 
Fig 3.

 

[cl3537]

On the subject of nitrite uptake by plants...
 
 
http/www.theaquariumwiki.com/Plants_and_Biological_Filtration
This is from the link above, an article written by Diana Walstad
 
[quote[
Nitrite Uptake by Plants
Although plants can use nitrite as an N source, the pertinent question for hobbyists is - Do aquatic plants remove the toxic nitrite before the non-toxic nitrate? I could not find enough studies in the scientific literature to state conclusively that they do. However, the chemical reduction of nitrites to ammonium requires less of the plant’s energy than the chemical reduction of nitrates to ammonium. (A plant must convert both nitrites and nitrates to ammonium before it can use them to make its proteins.) Thus, it is not surprising that when Spirodela oligorrhiza was grown in media containing both nitrate and nitrite, it preferred nitrite (Fig. 3).

 
Fig 3.

[/QUOTE] 
It might be a reasonable hypothesis from the above and this  http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_assimilation that aquatic  plants may preferentially absorb Ammonium > Nitrite > Nitrate but can use all 3.
 
The metabolic pathway for soil based plant uptake of Nitrates involves nitrate reductase in the cytosol followed by Nitrite reductase in the Chloroplasts.
 
I haven't tried to find references to prove my statement, but a sterile planted tank environment with added Sodium Nitrite would be a start to see if the plants will process it.
Then a similar environment with precise Ammonium Chloride and Sodium Nitrite concentrations could test the preferential uptake.
 
Alkaline Ph may be an inhibitor to the process, as well too acidic conditions may cause oxidation and/or disproportionation of the Nitrite so dilute aqueous solution like in aquarium conditions are likely important.
 
An interesting topic, but my research days are long behind me and I really just want to keep some health fish as quickly as possible.

 

[Byron]

TwoTankAmin and I have exchanged papers in a discussion on nitrite uptake by aquarium plants, and I will leave it for him to interject here as he sees fit.   I am only going to point out that aquatic plants and terrestrial plants do have significant differences, so the results of studies on terrestrial plants may not necessarily be applicable to aquatic.  The one absolute that is documented more than adequately now is that the vast majority of aquarium plants prefer to uptake ammonium (or ammonia) as their preferred source of nitrogen.  Nitrite and nitrate are only utilized when ammonia/ammonium is less than sufficient for the particular plant when taken in balance.  By this latter bit, I mean that the plants take up nutrients when all are present sufficient for their needs, and in light that is of sufficient intensity to drive photosynthesis.  If ammonium should fall in this case, and nitrate was available, plants would likely use it to make up the difference.  The high-tech planted tank demonstrates this.
 
Byron.

 

[cl3537]

TwoTankAmin and I have exchanged papers in a discussion on nitrite uptake by aquarium plants, and I will leave it for him to interject here as he sees fit.   I am only going to point out that aquatic plants and terrestrial plants do have significant differences, so the results of studies on terrestrial plants may not necessarily be applicable to aquatic.  The one absolute that is documented more than adequately now is that the vast majority of aquarium plants prefer to uptake ammonium (or ammonia) as their preferred source of nitrogen.  Nitrite and nitrate are only utilized when ammonia/ammonium is less than sufficient for the particular plant when taken in balance.  By this latter bit, I mean that the plants take up nutrients when all are present sufficient for their needs, and in light that is of sufficient intensity to drive photosynthesis.  If ammonium should fall in this case, and nitrate was available, plants would likely use it to make up the difference.  The high-tech planted tank demonstrates this.
 
Byron.

Have you seen any Ammonium vs.Nitrite uptake papers similar to the Walstad graph above with Ammonium Vs. Nitrate?
 
There are two ways I know where I  could see Ammonia consumption and no Nitrite:
 
1) Nitrosonomas converts Ammonia to Nitrite and is the rate limiting step and the Nitrospira are in enough abundance to convert all produced Nitrite to Nitrates as quickly as they are produced.
2) No significant BB are present and its just the plants taking up Ammonia without any Nitrite being produced,  the TSS bacs are either dead or haven't grown in significant quantities yet.
 
I tend to think its 2) right now because if Bacteria were responsible for a lowering of Ammonia they would only continue to grow and increase the Ammonia consumption which doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[Byron]

Have you seen any Ammonium vs.Nitrite uptake papers similar to the Walstad graph above with Ammonium Vs. Nitrate?
 

 
No, which is to say, I know of those she cites, but when I am satisfied of the data I don't tend to dig further, and no one has yet (to my knowledge) proven this wrong.  In the linked Wikipedia article of Diana that eaglesaquarium provided, she mentions 33 studies and gives some of the references.  There may be more in her book (which I have).

There are two ways I know where I  could see Ammonia consumption and no Nitrite:
 
1) Nitrosonomas converts Ammonia to Nitrite and is the rate limiting step and the Nitrospira are in enough abundance to convert all produced Nitrite to Nitrates as quickly as they are produced.
2) No significant BB are present and its just the plants taking up Ammonia without any Nitrite being produced,  the TSS bacs are either dead or haven't grown in significant quantities yet.
 
I tend to think its 2) right now because if Bacteria were responsible for a lowering of Ammonia they would only continue to grow and increase the Ammonia consumption which doesn't seem to be the case here.
 

 
This would be my thinking too.

 

[cl3537]

 

 
No, which is to say, I know of those she cites, but when I am satisfied of the data I don't tend to dig further, and no one has yet (to my knowledge) proven this wrong.  In the linked Wikipedia article of Diana that eaglesaquarium provided, she mentions 33 studies and gives some of the references.  There may be more in her book (which I have).

 
Well as she writes:
 
"Although plants can use nitrite as an N source, the pertinent question for hobbyists is - Do aquatic plants remove the toxic nitrite before the non-toxic nitrate? I could not find enough studies in the scientific literature to state conclusively that they do. However, the chemical reduction of nitrites to ammonium requires less of the plant’s energy than the chemical reduction of nitrates to ammonium. (A plant must convert both nitrites and nitrates to ammonium before it can use them to make its proteins.) Thus, it is not surprising that when Spirodela oligorrhiza was grown in media containing both nitrate and nitrite, it preferred nitrite (Fig. 3)."
 
That is far from clear and as stated no references were found to definitive prove the uptake of nitrite by plants and in what concentration.

 

[cl3537]

 
Plants do not uptake nitrite, they take in ammonia (as NH4) and/or nitrate. 
 
 

 
That seems counter-intuitive as the metabolic pathway for plants to get to usable Ammonium goes through Nitrite as an intermediary.
http/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00595.x/pdf
 
 
However nitrite is unstable in acidic aerobic environments in higher concentrations so I just wonder if it hasn't been studied as much because in the "wild"  in non aquatic environments it only exists in much lower concentrations.

 

[daizeUK]

There are two ways I know where I  could see Ammonia consumption and no Nitrite:
 
1) Nitrosonomas converts Ammonia to Nitrite and is the rate limiting step and the Nitrospira are in enough abundance to convert all produced Nitrite to Nitrates as quickly as they are produced.
2) No significant BB are present and its just the plants taking up Ammonia without any Nitrite being produced,  the TSS bacs are either dead or haven't grown in significant quantities yet.
 
I tend to think its 2) right now because if Bacteria were responsible for a lowering of Ammonia they would only continue to grow and increase the Ammonia consumption which doesn't seem to be the case here.

 
A third possibility to consider is that your test kit isn't working.
 
The last time I had a newly planted tank I saw no evidence that it was capable of processing anywhere near that much ammonia.  But I have had plenty of first hand experience with bad and inaccurate test kits!

 

[LilyRose Tank]

Just wanted to say Welcome to TFF Jordan. You have certainly been encircled in the throng here already, well done. This thread reads like a science paper! I would say one thing about floating plants, as a previous fluval 46L setup owner, I wouldn't recommend them. They may not get enough co2 and will die pretty quickly. I also found them to encourage algal growthat the water line, that may have been down to a mistake. On my part of course. Good luck. With your new hobby. As for stocking, endlers are a lovely site in one of these tanks, I highly recommend them. An alternative to the nerite snail, is the assasin snail, small snail that will kill all other snails except other assasins of course. Plus they can survive on algae pellets/wafers and left over fish food.
I have also used Dr Tim's, and it's a very. Good way to cycle a tank, just for future reference. Good luck x

 

[cl3537]

 

There are two ways I know where I  could see Ammonia consumption and no Nitrite:
 
1) Nitrosonomas converts Ammonia to Nitrite and is the rate limiting step and the Nitrospira are in enough abundance to convert all produced Nitrite to Nitrates as quickly as they are produced.
2) No significant BB are present and its just the plants taking up Ammonia without any Nitrite being produced,  the TSS bacs are either dead or haven't grown in significant quantities yet.
 
I tend to think its 2) right now because if Bacteria were responsible for a lowering of Ammonia they would only continue to grow and increase the Ammonia consumption which doesn't seem to be the case here.

 
A third possibility to consider is that your test kit isn't working.
 
The last time I had a newly planted tank I saw no evidence that it was capable of processing anywhere near that much ammonia.  But I have had plenty of first hand experience with bad and inaccurate test kits!
 

Well sure that could be a possibility for some but I discount it because:
 
1) I am using the reliable API master kit expiring in December 2018
2) I tested my tap water and it matches the City's report for Ammonia (0) and PH (8.0) although I didn't test nitrite as there isn't any in tap water.
 
Just to be sure I'll have a sample of my water tested at the LFS next time I am there but I give that possibility a low chance. I have had Ammonium readings from 1+ down to 0 and it seems to be working as expected.

 

[daizeUK]

1) I am using the reliable API master kit expiring in December 2018

 
Unless you test your kit against a known reference source you can't know how reliable it is.  I tested my API kit against a known reference source and the ammonia test was only reading about half the actual value.  Others more commonly report that theirs records too much ammonia.  It's not that great a kit - cheap and easy to use, sure, but not as reliable as people assume.