Whats Going On With My Cycle?

[Bignose]

Does it really need a citation Bignose? In a cycled, mature tank the ammonia level will always be below (usually well below) 0.01ppm. By definition therefore (or circumstance) the nitrifying bacteria that are effective in an aquarium must be most efficient at metabolising at those low levels, otherwise they'd never get established in the first place or they'd be in a permanent state of dormancy.

Yes, please. I want to read the study that cites that specific number. I do not think that just because a tank happens to balance itself so that there is zero accumulation of ammonia and nitrates in a tank necessarily means that the bacteria are most efficient at that concentration. You are using a logical fallacy, specifically a false dichotomy, with this statement "By definition therefore (or circumstance) the nitrifying bacteria that are effective in an aquarium must be most efficient at metabolising at those low levels, otherwise they'd never get established in the first place or they'd be in a permanent state of dormancy." So, unless there is a study that demonstrates that they are MOST efficient at that concentration, it is a misleading statement at best.

Let me give you a similar example. I can drive my car at a steady 30 mph, either by controlling the gas with my foot or by setting the cruise control. Keeping it steady means it is neither accelerating or decelerating. It is not changing its state, just like the tank isn't changing its state. Do you automatically assume that my car uses fuel most efficiently at 30 mph? Just because an equilibrium has been reached, does not necessitate that the dynamics of the situation are at their most efficient. In fact, it is rather rarer that equilibrium and most efficient are the same, if only because most systems are rather complex.

 

[Prime Ordeal]

I think you're misinterpreting what I said.

I said "In a cycled, mature tank the ammonia level will always be below (usually well below) 0.01ppm." That as I see it is a statement of fact, or do you believe that the ammonia level will be greater? It seems like a no-brainer to me. You seem to be reading too much into what is a very simple statement of typical ammonia levels. I hardly think it needs a citation, just get a decent ammonia testing kit and measure it!

 

[Bignose]

you wrote:

the nitrifying bacteria that are effective in an aquarium must be most efficient at metabolising at those low levels [emphasis mine]

How am I misinterpreting your words there of "most efficient"?

Adding too much ammonia encourages the establishment of the wrong type of bacteria because the bacteria we want in our tank work at levels of less than 0.01ppm ammonia

And this quote implies that unless you keep the level at 0.01 ppm or less, you grow the wrong kind of bacteria. I want to see a citation that says that.

I believe that all the anecdotal evidence of the many of us (myself included) that fishless cycled dosing to a level of 4 to 5 ppm of ammonia in the tank every single day provides evidence contrary to the 0.01 number. So, I was trying to read the source where you got that number from in the first place. Or are you claiming it as your own work? In which case, I'd like to know how you arrived at that number.