Cycling for life!
- Thread starter spanko
- Start date
meowzer
Moderator
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Henry which do you prefer eye or ear muffs
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by meowzer
http:///forum/post/3201762
Come on Lois she is talking about a car. Its now like you dont love 4 on the floor with posi traction
http:///forum/post/3201762
Come on Lois she is talking about a car. Its now like you dont love 4 on the floor with posi traction
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3201690
we need to make sure we are not confusing rate of growth with amount of growth
The rate determines the amount. If you follow a regular feeding schedule, the rate should stay relatively consistent. Most people think that more ammonia=more bacteria=faster cycle. As Bang explained, something as low as .25 is an adequate ppm to allow the bacteria cells to multiply exponentially.
If you have 5 humans living on Earth with 1500 pounds of food (nonperishable) and you have a group of 5 humans living on Earth with 21000 pounds of food, which group will reproduce to the point of having 20 members first?
http:///forum/post/3201690
we need to make sure we are not confusing rate of growth with amount of growth
The rate determines the amount. If you follow a regular feeding schedule, the rate should stay relatively consistent. Most people think that more ammonia=more bacteria=faster cycle. As Bang explained, something as low as .25 is an adequate ppm to allow the bacteria cells to multiply exponentially.
If you have 5 humans living on Earth with 1500 pounds of food (nonperishable) and you have a group of 5 humans living on Earth with 21000 pounds of food, which group will reproduce to the point of having 20 members first?
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3201786
The rate determines the amount. If you follow a regular feeding schedule, the rate should stay relatively consistent. Most people think that more ammonia=more bacteria=faster cycle. As Bang explained, something as low as .25 is an adequate ppm to allow the bacteria cells to multiply exponentially.
If you have 5 humans living on Earth with 1500 pounds of food (nonperishable) and you have a group of 5 humans living on Earth with 21000 pounds of food, which group will reproduce to the point of having 20 members first?
I'd equate it to something more like 50 pounds of food per person per day vs 200 pounds of food per person per day.
http:///forum/post/3201786
The rate determines the amount. If you follow a regular feeding schedule, the rate should stay relatively consistent. Most people think that more ammonia=more bacteria=faster cycle. As Bang explained, something as low as .25 is an adequate ppm to allow the bacteria cells to multiply exponentially.
If you have 5 humans living on Earth with 1500 pounds of food (nonperishable) and you have a group of 5 humans living on Earth with 21000 pounds of food, which group will reproduce to the point of having 20 members first?
I'd equate it to something more like 50 pounds of food per person per day vs 200 pounds of food per person per day.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3201788
I'd equate it to something more like 50 pounds of food per person per day vs 200 pounds of food per person per day.
Good equating skillz.
http:///forum/post/3201788
I'd equate it to something more like 50 pounds of food per person per day vs 200 pounds of food per person per day.
Good equating skillz.
rlablan
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3201760
UMMM and you do drive stick well
good gosh... I leave for one second and look what happens...
And thanks for the compliment Joe. ;o)
http:///forum/post/3201760
UMMM and you do drive stick well
good gosh... I leave for one second and look what happens...
And thanks for the compliment Joe. ;o)
florida joe
Well-Known Member
If you have 5 humans living on Earth with 1500 pounds of food (nonperishable) and you have a group of 5 humans living on Earth with 21000 pounds of food, which group will reproduce to the point of having 20 members first?
How is the rate of reproduction predicated on the amount of food available ?
The rate determines the amount. If you follow a regular feeding schedule, the rate should stay relatively consistent.
Actually it you stick to a regular feeding schedule and maintain the same live stock you will not have a constant growth of bio-filtration
And thanks for the compliment Joe. ;o)
No thank you,I just looked at your profile
How is the rate of reproduction predicated on the amount of food available ?
The rate determines the amount. If you follow a regular feeding schedule, the rate should stay relatively consistent.
Actually it you stick to a regular feeding schedule and maintain the same live stock you will not have a constant growth of bio-filtration
And thanks for the compliment Joe. ;o)
No thank you,I just looked at your profile
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3202101
How is the rate of reproduction predicated on the amount of food available ?
The rate of reproduction will only be affected if there's a lack of food. The point is that an 'excess' of food doesn't make it faster than if there's only an 'abundance' of food.
I have seen experiments where the Nitrospira Bacteria populations (organisms that oxidize Nitrite - for the benefit of everyone except Joe) are actually impeded by high Ammonia levels. I have not been able to duplicate the experiments but if that were true then high ammonia levels will actually extend the cycle time.
http:///forum/post/3202101
How is the rate of reproduction predicated on the amount of food available ?
The rate of reproduction will only be affected if there's a lack of food. The point is that an 'excess' of food doesn't make it faster than if there's only an 'abundance' of food.
I have seen experiments where the Nitrospira Bacteria populations (organisms that oxidize Nitrite - for the benefit of everyone except Joe) are actually impeded by high Ammonia levels. I have not been able to duplicate the experiments but if that were true then high ammonia levels will actually extend the cycle time.
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/3201651
Don't know if you are addressing my comments or not, but yes I agree completely with your statements above. However the original thread was started to give options to the new aquarist. To help to decide on how much time and energy could be should be put into cycling a tank with live rock that may have much more life on it, than something like base rock or already cured rock that may or may not have the same amount of life. The option being of course to try to save as much life as possible by limiting the rise of ammonia to less than .5.
I think you know where I was going here Bang but just needed to make sure.
I understand where you were going. I wasn't really addressing anyone in particular, just trying to provide a catalyst for discussion.
http:///forum/post/3201651
Don't know if you are addressing my comments or not, but yes I agree completely with your statements above. However the original thread was started to give options to the new aquarist. To help to decide on how much time and energy could be should be put into cycling a tank with live rock that may have much more life on it, than something like base rock or already cured rock that may or may not have the same amount of life. The option being of course to try to save as much life as possible by limiting the rise of ammonia to less than .5.
I think you know where I was going here Bang but just needed to make sure.
I understand where you were going. I wasn't really addressing anyone in particular, just trying to provide a catalyst for discussion.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3202110
The rate of reproduction will only be affected if there's a lack of food. The point is that an 'excess' of food doesn't make it faster than if there's only an 'abundance' of food.
I have seen experiments where the Nitrospira Bacteria populations (organisms that oxidize Nitrite - for the benefit of everyone except Joe) are actually impeded by high Ammonia levels. I have not been able to duplicate the experiments but if that were true then high ammonia levels will actually extend the cycle time.
I agree with out food there is no reproduction or sustained bio filtration
I totally agree Bang when it comes to nitrifing bacteria. My point being the human examples leave to may other variables to be a good example.
I am a little confused doesn't abundance and excess basically mean the same thing ?
http:///forum/post/3202110
The rate of reproduction will only be affected if there's a lack of food. The point is that an 'excess' of food doesn't make it faster than if there's only an 'abundance' of food.
I have seen experiments where the Nitrospira Bacteria populations (organisms that oxidize Nitrite - for the benefit of everyone except Joe) are actually impeded by high Ammonia levels. I have not been able to duplicate the experiments but if that were true then high ammonia levels will actually extend the cycle time.
I agree with out food there is no reproduction or sustained bio filtration
I totally agree Bang when it comes to nitrifing bacteria. My point being the human examples leave to may other variables to be a good example.
I am a little confused doesn't abundance and excess basically mean the same thing ?
beaslbob
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3202130
...
I am a little confused doesn't abundance and excess basically mean the same thing ?
I guess it would be possible to have a fully consumed abundance with no excess
my .02
http:///forum/post/3202130
...
I am a little confused doesn't abundance and excess basically mean the same thing ?
I guess it would be possible to have a fully consumed abundance with no excess
my .02
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by beaslbob
http:///forum/post/3202140
I guess it would be possible to have a fully consumed abundance with no excess
my .02
If go by the definition of abundance meaning oversufficien supply we could never exhaust the amount in abundance because if we did it would have then just been sufficient and not in abundance
http:///forum/post/3202140
I guess it would be possible to have a fully consumed abundance with no excess
my .02
If go by the definition of abundance meaning oversufficien supply we could never exhaust the amount in abundance because if we did it would have then just been sufficient and not in abundance
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3202181
If go by the definition of abundance meaning oversufficien supply we could never exhaust the amount in abundance because if we did it would have then just been sufficient and not in abundance
Maintaining a level of 0.25ppm ammonia would be abundant food, a level of 1.5ppm ammonia would be an excessive amount.
Mostly semantics I suppose.
http:///forum/post/3202181
If go by the definition of abundance meaning oversufficien supply we could never exhaust the amount in abundance because if we did it would have then just been sufficient and not in abundance
Maintaining a level of 0.25ppm ammonia would be abundant food, a level of 1.5ppm ammonia would be an excessive amount.
Mostly semantics I suppose.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3202218
Maintaining a level of 0.25ppm ammonia would be abundant food, a level of 1.5ppm ammonia would be an excessive amount.
Mostly semantics I suppose.
.There you go Bang throwing in a word (semantics) I do not know the meaning of. my guess would be one of those shrimp we don't want in our tank.
http:///forum/post/3202218
Maintaining a level of 0.25ppm ammonia would be abundant food, a level of 1.5ppm ammonia would be an excessive amount.
Mostly semantics I suppose.
.There you go Bang throwing in a word (semantics) I do not know the meaning of. my guess would be one of those shrimp we don't want in our tank.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3202130
My point being the human examples leave to may other variables to be a good example.
I don't understand this sentence.
http:///forum/post/3202130
My point being the human examples leave to may other variables to be a good example.
I don't understand this sentence.