Sure. Google "nitrifying bacteria water temperature". I don't think relying on a single source for this type of info is a good idea.shakaho said:
No Ammonia after 2 weeks, normal?
- Thread starter falconut
- Start date
It has been stated by many die-hard and knowledgeable pond owners/designers/maintainers that you should not rely upon any one statement or source for your complete and ultimate pond information. There are lots of myths and facts to wade through and it's difficult to differentiate between them at all times. Do not believe everything you read on the internet because most likely, it can be a sales pitch to get you convinced to buy something you don't need.
All of the members here, including myself, have nothing to sell. We just enjoy helping others because your hobby is our hobby. Doesn't mean that we are right or wrong, it just means that we are
interested in your projects just the same as our own.
Like Waterbug states... GOOGLE IT and then sift through everything you find and discard the dregs.
Catfishnut
All of the members here, including myself, have nothing to sell. We just enjoy helping others because your hobby is our hobby. Doesn't mean that we are right or wrong, it just means that we are
interested in your projects just the same as our own.
Like Waterbug states... GOOGLE IT and then sift through everything you find and discard the dregs.
Catfishnut
I see maybe what you're getting at. Yes, nitrifying bacteria are surprisingly studied very little for creatures so important to humans. I believe the the first species was only discovered in the 1970's even though we've known for a really long time that these creature must exist. It's assumed I believe that most species have not yet been identified yet much less studied. Of the species found there isn't even universal agreement on classification. So yeah, there is no definitive info available in many areas. We're searching the cosmos for new life while we're neck deep in undiscovered life right here.shakaho said:
As far as temp ranges go, again only a few species have been studied. And even then you have Grundmann publishing pretty different optimum temp and pH in 2000 from Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology just 7 years earlier. To me, a layperson, it seems like determining optimum would be pretty straight forward, but I guess not. Poor testing methods or more effects these creatures than we're guessing. I don't really know, too early imo.
However, in the practical world, people have been studying the conversion process these creatures perform for a long time. Farmers have long understood for example how pH effects on these creatures.
In the pond world there's been a lot of people posting data on ammonia conversion and water temp. How much weight an individual wants to put on empirical data is their personal preference. For me, I've read enough posts in forums over the years that I give it a good amount of weight that the optimal temp range is in the 75-95F range and conversion in the 65F and under range really drops off. And I believe that conversion and growth are related based on studies and the time needed to cycle filters. Again, if I read 100 posts by what appear to be by reasonable people, taking measurements, and all show poorer conversion at lower temps that's good enough for me at least until there's any better info.
At the other end we have products like Arctic Bleand that came out awhile back which claimed, well sort of claimed, to contain a cold water microbes that ate ammonia. Of the few people who tried the product and posted results I read it wasn't surprising, a scam. Who knows, maybe they really did fine some new species, but if we can't dump it into a pond and see ammonia removal there's some problem and the bottom line is it didn't work. And the company only provided the normal marketing scientific sprinkled buzz word crap.
I can't remember anyone ever posting that they were removing a serious amount of ammonia biologically in say under 50F. Just some outgassing deals. It's possible the outgassing is some kind of bio creature, but I don't think it's at all likely.
There is a woman currently studying nitrifying bacteria in Antarctica I think, so maybe something new will come out of that. The study is a couple of years old but not published yet as far as I know.
Mmathis
TurtleMommy
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 14,296
- Reaction score
- 8,342
- Location
- NW Louisiana -- zone 8b
- Hardiness Zone
- 8b
- Country
My pond is just under a year old. I've never had a significant amt. of ANYTHING when I test. A few slightly high levels of ammonia after about a month, but otherwise...... I, too, was concerned. I recently added some fish, so will be curious to see what happens.
How big was your pond and how many fish did you start out with?Mmathis said:
Mmathis
TurtleMommy
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 14,296
- Reaction score
- 8,342
- Location
- NW Louisiana -- zone 8b
- Hardiness Zone
- 8b
- Country
3000 gals. I started out with maybe 3 fish [goldfish, no koi], but by the end of summer, was up to [close to] 20. Had a few plants, but don't think there were enough to make a significant impact. Was running a 100 gal. Skippy filter.
What I was doing was every time I got an "ammonia" reading [no matter how low], was doing a water change. Well, chemistry is not my "thing," but it occurred to me that if I compensated EVERY TIME I got ammonia, I was inhibiting the "cycling" process. So I left things alone after that, and still no spikes. Have never had a positive nitrate or nitrite reading. I even double-checked the exp. dates on my [liquid API] test kit.
I searched for my post about that, but couldn't find it. Basically, after lots of reassurance, the best advice I got from my GPF family was ...... chill
What I was doing was every time I got an "ammonia" reading [no matter how low], was doing a water change. Well, chemistry is not my "thing," but it occurred to me that if I compensated EVERY TIME I got ammonia, I was inhibiting the "cycling" process. So I left things alone after that, and still no spikes. Have never had a positive nitrate or nitrite reading. I even double-checked the exp. dates on my [liquid API] test kit.
I searched for my post about that, but couldn't find it. Basically, after lots of reassurance, the best advice I got from my GPF family was ...... chill
The reason there is so little known about nitrifying bacteria is that they, like most autotrophic bacteria (except for cyanobacteria), are difficult to culture. It's hard to learn much about a microbe unless you can culture it. The reason why Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are the nitrifying bugs we know most about is that they are the easiest to culture.
Incidentally, every old microbiology textbook I have found has a statement the equivalent of "The oxidation of ammonia to nitrite is carried out by one kind of bacteria , such as Nitrosomonas, and the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate is carried out by another kind or bacteria, for example Nitrobacter. Fish keepers shortened this up, leaving out the "such as" or "for example" which does change the meaning quite a bit.
It turns out that in freshwater aquarium filters, Nitrospira is the dominant nitrogen oxidizer, and archaea, not bacteria, are the dominant ammonia oxidizers. I haven't found any research identifying nitrifiers in pond filters, but it seems Nitrosomas and Nitrobacter dominate in sewage, but not in other ecosystems.
Of course, Waterbug, you are absolutely right that almost all metabolic processes are slower at lower temperatures (except in the tiny minority of organisms that are warm blooded). I think the 75% reduction you cited is probably realistic, but the metabolic rate of the fish is also down.
There's a lot of interesting research going on about nitrification in tundra and other very cold environments. As one would expect, ammonia oxidation is carried out primarily by archaea rather than bacteria, and the process is slow.
As for googling it, that will give you hundreds of sources repeating what they read when they googled it. It's currently the most effective way of spreading "myths," as Waterbug regularly (and admirably) points out.
Incidentally, every old microbiology textbook I have found has a statement the equivalent of "The oxidation of ammonia to nitrite is carried out by one kind of bacteria , such as Nitrosomonas, and the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate is carried out by another kind or bacteria, for example Nitrobacter. Fish keepers shortened this up, leaving out the "such as" or "for example" which does change the meaning quite a bit.
It turns out that in freshwater aquarium filters, Nitrospira is the dominant nitrogen oxidizer, and archaea, not bacteria, are the dominant ammonia oxidizers. I haven't found any research identifying nitrifiers in pond filters, but it seems Nitrosomas and Nitrobacter dominate in sewage, but not in other ecosystems.
Of course, Waterbug, you are absolutely right that almost all metabolic processes are slower at lower temperatures (except in the tiny minority of organisms that are warm blooded). I think the 75% reduction you cited is probably realistic, but the metabolic rate of the fish is also down.
There's a lot of interesting research going on about nitrification in tundra and other very cold environments. As one would expect, ammonia oxidation is carried out primarily by archaea rather than bacteria, and the process is slow.
As for googling it, that will give you hundreds of sources repeating what they read when they googled it. It's currently the most effective way of spreading "myths," as Waterbug regularly (and admirably) points out.
And at colder temps it's more of the safer ionized-ammonia rather than the toxic free ammonia.shakaho said:
I think when it comes to bacteria it's pretty easy to separate the parrots from the thoughtfully researched info. Lot's of good info from the waste treatment industry and also from aquarists. And more of the type of info I'm interested in because it's more practical imo for ponds.shakaho said:
Info on ponds on the other hand...omg.
"I have 0.25 ppm ammonia, 40F, 7.0 pH and my fish look sluggish."
"I can't believe our fish are still alive. Ammonia is very toxic. You must do a 100% water change immediately."
"OK, I did the water change. My fish look worst."
"Did you remove the chlorine?"
"What's chlorine?
:lol:
crsublette
coyotes call me Charles
Also, please folks, if you are wanting to learn the microbiology involved in this hobby, then please read the articles when they are referenced. Read the entire article. Read beyond the misleading titles. Read beyond the abstracts and beyond the executive summaries and read the details prior to the conclusive paragraphs. Actually attempt to assimulate and understand the abstract data points and technical measurements they use and the parameters involved in the tests and the testing methodologies. Also, pay very close attention to subjective word qualifiers such as "less", "more", "abundant", "dominant", etc since qualifiers always direct toward a particular context.There is too much citation of papers out there by folk that simply do not read the difficult details, nor attempt to comprehend the paper's contents. The author's deserve better respect for the work they perform by actually doing what I suggest here.
Context is extremely important and all of these articles are involved in a particular context. Context most importantly involves considering the chemical composition of the environment. As we are quite aware, the context of an outdoor pond involves a wide variance of environmental factors that may not be considered as a parameter, or may breach the parameters, in studies that involve a context outside of our environment, such as in a labratory or freshwater and marine aquarium or waste treatement facility environments. Folk easily can contort studies into meaning something much more than what it actually shows when context is deemed unimportant. In microbiology, the answer is never exact, that is the answer is always quite relative, that is "either... or..." due to our ever evolving understanding on the subject matter. If the studies are almost a year or two year old, then there is quite likely a follow up or addendum to the subject matter by other authors out there somewhere in the nebulous space we call the Internet.
There is just as much distortion by folk who cite studies as there are by folk who claim their own experiments, experience, and observations is indicative of them being one step closer to being a doctorate in the field or an expert in their explanation or reasoning to be viewed more credible. Unfortuantely, even as scientific as they are, discussing studies can be just like talking politics, can be manipulated when context is ignored, where folk are just trying to score points for their own argument or confusion.
If there is a parameter or data point measurement you do not understand, then "google" it.
I am purposely being vague here so to somehow motivate you, the reader, rather than doing it for you, to want to read more to expand the breadth of your understanding. Do your homework and assume nothing and approach it with no bias regardless of how peer pressure or abundant emotions or well written persuasions found on forums may persuade you as a distraction.
Context is extremely important and all of these articles are involved in a particular context. Context most importantly involves considering the chemical composition of the environment. As we are quite aware, the context of an outdoor pond involves a wide variance of environmental factors that may not be considered as a parameter, or may breach the parameters, in studies that involve a context outside of our environment, such as in a labratory or freshwater and marine aquarium or waste treatement facility environments. Folk easily can contort studies into meaning something much more than what it actually shows when context is deemed unimportant. In microbiology, the answer is never exact, that is the answer is always quite relative, that is "either... or..." due to our ever evolving understanding on the subject matter. If the studies are almost a year or two year old, then there is quite likely a follow up or addendum to the subject matter by other authors out there somewhere in the nebulous space we call the Internet.
There is just as much distortion by folk who cite studies as there are by folk who claim their own experiments, experience, and observations is indicative of them being one step closer to being a doctorate in the field or an expert in their explanation or reasoning to be viewed more credible. Unfortuantely, even as scientific as they are, discussing studies can be just like talking politics, can be manipulated when context is ignored, where folk are just trying to score points for their own argument or confusion.
If there is a parameter or data point measurement you do not understand, then "google" it.
I am purposely being vague here so to somehow motivate you, the reader, rather than doing it for you, to want to read more to expand the breadth of your understanding. Do your homework and assume nothing and approach it with no bias regardless of how peer pressure or abundant emotions or well written persuasions found on forums may persuade you as a distraction.