WOW I just stumped KGB!!!...lol

[tanks4thememories]

I was having trouble getting any university to answer one of my nitrification questions so I decided to ask "KGB" you know the guys that for .99 USD will answer any question you text to "542542" from your cell phone. Well anyway here is my reply "We are very sorry but every day we get a few questions we can not answer. This is one of them. No charge KGB_team." ROTFL!!

[EmmanuelJB]

"We are very sorry but every day we get a few questions we can not answer. This is one of them. No charge KGB_team." ROTFL!!
lol :hmm3grin2orange: lol
What exaclty was the questions??

[tanks4thememories]

lol :hmm3grin2orange: lol
What exaclty was the questions??

Are you sure you really want to know? My head almost exploded trying to phrase it correctly...lol

Ok cover your eyes...and don't say I didn't warn you...lol

"In general (given average home aquarium conditions: sea level, 7-8 ppm disolved oxygen,, 78-80 F temp, 7.4 ph) how many nitrafying bacteria (nitrosmonas, nitrobacter..etc) can occupy 1 square inch of standard sponge type filter media in an established fresh water aquarium filter?"

Mind you this question is sitting un answered in the mail boxes of several marine and biology departments at several Leading US Universities...lol

SeaChem out right stopped answering my e-mails...lol

This is part of the ambiguity you often see me alluding to when I speak about nitrification and water quality..even the experts don't have or wont share precise data on the subject...lol

[EmmanuelJB]

Are you sure you really want to know? My head almost exploded trying to phrase it correctly...lol

Ok cover your eyes...and don't say I didn't warn you...lol

"In general (given average home aquarium conditions: sea level, 7-8 ppm disolved oxygen,, 78-80 F temp, 7.4 ph) how many nitrafying bacteria (nitrosmonas, nitrobacter..etc) can occupy 1 square inch of standard sponge type filter media in an established fresh water aquarium filter?"

Mind you this question is sitting un answered in the mail boxes of several marine and biology departments at several Leading US Universities...lol

SeaChem out right stopped answering my e-mails...lol

This is part of the ambiguity you often see me alluding to when I speak about nitrification and water quality..even the experts don't have or wont share precise data on the subject...lol

:hmm3grin2orange: Well no wonder they couldn't answer it.

I wonder if they could answer aquarium stocking questions.

[tanks4thememories]

:hmm3grin2orange: Well no wonder they couldn't answer it.

I wonder if they could answer aquarium stocking questions.


Yeah this confirms my theory that they are simply a regurgitation service. They most likely look up your answer on the net or from some confirmed DB acquired from the internet. I was hoping they would go the extra mile and actually research it with an authority on the subject and get back to me...lol Silly me...lol

As for your question yeah they should have no problem with a question like that cause they can simply look it up on the internet...lol

[jackson17]

KGB charges monthly I think also, may want to check that as a heads up lol.

I always use 242242 or CHA CHA...They always send you two texts, 1 advertisement, 1 with the answer, but if you have unlimiting texting, its free. Hence why I use it lol

[tanks4thememories]

KGB charges monthly I think also, may want to check that as a heads up lol.

I always use 242242 or CHA CHA...They always send you two texts, 1 advertisement, 1 with the answer, but if you have unlimiting texting, its free. Hence why I use it lol

Thanx. I wont be using KGB anymore..lol Chacha is kewl and I like the fact that they still have not replied which implies that they are doing more in depth research for the answer...well see..lol

[Lady Hobbs]

Isn't that like asking how many molecules of water is in a banana peel? I mean, bacteria can only been seen with a magnifying glass so how does one go about counting bacteria?

[Dave66]

With a counting cell Hobbsy, a kind of microscope slide with a tiny grid in the center of it. You just count the bacteria in ten cells of the grid and extrapolate for an average.

Dave

[Lady Hobbs]

I get that part but ya think these people are going to sit and count them when we have YOU......the Mad Scientist......to do it for them? :)

Interesting thread, tho. Something different to talk about for a change (other than cycling).

[Crispy]

wouldn't another unknown variable be the bioload of the tank? this will play a part in bacteria numbers I would think?

[tanks4thememories]

With a counting cell Hobbsy, a kind of microscope slide with a tiny grid in the center of it. You just count the bacteria in ten cells of the grid and extrapolate for an average.

Dave

!00% correct!! :)

[Dave66]

wouldn't another unknown variable be the bioload of the tank? this will play a part in bacteria numbers I would think?

Also the maturity of the filter itself, so the number will actually be an average of twelve samples taken from two sponge filters that are in my pair of FW quarantine tanks. It'll be the number of Nitrifying bacteria per square inch on my sponge filters. Since Nitrobacter is slow to procreate compared to, say, Paramecium, filters that have been running for months will of course have more of and more mature populations of the bacteria than filters that have been running for weeks or days.

Of course, the more bioload the more Nitrifying bacteria. So the number will be that from bioloads of 12 zebra danio per 40 gallon breeder, which I use to keep the QT tanks cycled.

So the number will be subjective.

Dave

[tanks4thememories]

Also the maturity of the filter itself, so the number will actually be an average of twelve samples taken from two sponge filters that are in my pair of FW quarantine tanks. It'll be the number of Nitrifying bacteria per square inch on my sponge filters. Since Nitrobacter is slow to procreate compared to, say, Paramecium, filters that have been running for months will of course have more of and more mature populations of the bacteria than filters that have been running for weeks or days.

Of course, the more bioload the more Nitrifying bacteria. So the number will be that from bioloads of 12 zebra danio per 40 gallon breeder, which I use to keep the QT tanks cycled.

So the number will be subjective.

Dave


True but this is qualified in the question by the words "In General" and "Established". Any biologist "worth his Petri dish" (lol) would further qualify his answer by supplying any further variables involved in the computation of the answer he gives. Thus making the answer usable for ones own extrapolation based on the subjective data. Ie: "Square inch used for computation was taken from the most dense colonization region in the sample." Or Square inch was chosen at random from a sample that had been in an established tank that was being fed 4 ppm of ammonia per day"

[tanks4thememories]

Also the maturity of the filter itself, so the number will actually be an average of twelve samples taken from two sponge filters that are in my pair of FW quarantine tanks. It'll be the number of Nitrifying bacteria per square inch on my sponge filters. Since Nitrobacter is slow to procreate compared to, say, Paramecium, filters that have been running for months will of course have more of and more mature populations of the bacteria than filters that have been running for weeks or days.

Of course, the more bioload the more Nitrifying bacteria. So the number will be that from bioloads of 12 zebra danio per 40 gallon breeder, which I use to keep the QT tanks cycled.

So the number will be subjective.

Dave

Is there a possibility that you might try it dave? If so there is some methodology I have available that can assist in making the data more objective. Wish I had the equipment or lived near ya id love to try it.

[tanks4thememories]

Ive given this considerable thought as you might have guessed by now...lol

If I was to attempt to answer this question I would take the filter media from an established tank and then put it into a new tank (assuring the most diverse bacterium population possible). Then I would put this tank with no fish on a strict liquid ammonia diet for about 2 months. I would attempt to find the point at which ammonia is not readily converted by upping the dosage until readings on ammonia take longer than previous averages to be processed.
At the above mentioned point it would be safe to say that the tank is at full colonization capacity. Then I would attempt the identification and count of the region I identified as the most dense. Or the faster method is to measure the main forms of bacteria that are expected to be present and extrapolate their numbers using empirical data on their general spacing and motility.

[Aeonflame]

Its seventeen dude. Yup.. seventeen.

[tanks4thememories]

Its seventeen dude. Yup.. seventeen.

umm BUZZZZZ...wrong answer...lol

[jackson17]

Thanx. I wont be using KGB anymore..lol Chacha is kewl and I like the fact that they still have not replied which implies that they are doing more in depth research for the answer...well see..lol

Just don't go crazy...I recently found out they have a limit for questions, don't know exactly what it is, but its a pretty decent amount lol. I was just asking random stuff when I was bored in class so save it for a good question.

[tanks4thememories]

Just don't go crazy...I recently found out they have a limit for questions, don't know exactly what it is, but its a pretty decent amount lol. I was just asking random stuff when I was bored in class so save it for a good question.

lol TY, We will see if I use them at all , still awaiting my answer:18:

[Bristley]

Its seventeen dude. Yup.. seventeen.

umm BUZZZZZ...wrong answer...lol

No I think 17 is right Aeonflames just using different units. :hmm3grin2orange:

[Dave66]

OK, y'all owe me one.

Per the OP's question "how many Nitrifying Bacteria per square inch in a sponge filter", I took samples via sterile swabs from two sponge filters, which are present in my pair of quarantine tanks. Using a counting cell in my microscope, I counted both Nitrosococcus, which oxidizes Ammonia to Nitrite, and Nitrobacter, which does the same to the Nitrite, resulting in Nitrate. Both are gram negative bacteria and are the most prevalent in freshwater and marine aquariums.

Both are quite easy to pick out through the microscope. I used a Leica CME microscope and 100X magnification in this experiment. Through the 'scope, Nitrosococcus appears as two ovals stuck end to end, like fat barbels, with the nucleus in the middle. Nitrobacter on the other hand, looks like short rounded-end rods, with the nucleus at one end and a flagellate at the other for propulsion. For obvious reasons the test was for square centimeter, instead of inch, so it's just a multiple by a factor of ten.

The counting cell I used has one hundred cells across and down in a square. I counted the first ten cells for both bacteria, then multiplied by ten, then by 100 ten times squared.

So, on average, on my sponge filters, per square centimeter, there are 1.28 billion of Nitrosococcus and 1.92 billion Nitrobacter. The bioload is 12 Zebra Danios in each 40 gallon QT tank. Obviously the more Ammonia the more Nitrifying bacteria, so tanks with larger or more numerous fish or other ammonia producers will most likely have more, and of course new or newer tanks far less.

Dave

[fish00053]

I know this won't help in your computation, but, I have a 64 oz. bottle of stress zyme plus. The label boasts that it contains millions of live bacteria. It doesn't say how many millions but it may give you an idea of how much bacteria is in their. For Example. for existing tanks it says to use 5ml per 10 gallons of water.

[tanks4thememories]

OK, y'all owe me one.

Per the OP's question "how many Nitrifying Bacteria per square inch in a sponge filter", I took samples via sterile swabs from two sponge filters, which are present in my pair of quarantine tanks. Using a counting cell in my microscope, I counted both Nitrosococcus, which oxidizes Ammonia to Nitrite, and Nitrobacter, which does the same to the Nitrite, resulting in Nitrate. Both are gram negative bacteria and are the most prevalent in freshwater and marine aquariums.

Both are quite easy to pick out through the microscope. I used a Leica CME microscope and 100X magnification in this experiment. Through the 'scope, Nitrosococcus appears as two ovals stuck end to end, like fat barbels, with the nucleus in the middle. Nitrobacter on the other hand, looks like short rounded-end rods, with the nucleus at one end and a flagellate at the other for propulsion. For obvious reasons the test was for square centimeter, instead of inch, so it's just a multiple by a factor of ten.

The counting cell I used has one hundred cells across and down in a square. I counted the first ten cells for both bacteria, then multiplied by ten, then by 100 ten times squared.

So, on average, on my sponge filters, per square centimeter, there are 1.28 billion of Nitrosococcus and 1.92 billion Nitrobacter. The bioload is 12 Zebra Danios in each 40 gallon QT tank. Obviously the more Ammonia the more Nitrifying bacteria, so tanks with larger or more numerous fish or other ammonia producers will most likely have more, and of course new or newer tanks far less.

Dave

You are my hero Dave!! "U R DA MAN!!" Now I just have to figure out the proccessing power of 1 each: Nitrosococus & Nitrobacter...lol Im also curious what other bacterium if any you saw in there?

[Wild Turkey]

Those guys are a joke, anyone who wants to make a few extra dollars an hour can sign up, and they just copy and paste answers out of google. Its mostly kids

[Dave66]

You are my hero Dave!! "U R DA MAN!!" Now I just have to figure out the proccessing power of 1 each: Nitrosococus & Nitrobacter...lol Im also curious what other bacterium if any you saw in there?

It's instantaneous; the bacteria are obligate. The more Ammonia you have the more Nitrifying bacteria you have, so the processing power of each is limitless. Though, as I said, they split to procreate slowly, meaning it can be ten hours or more for a colony to, say, double, to adapt to more Ammonia.

All Nitrifying bacteria use Oxygen to Oxidize the Nitrogen. In FW, most do partial water changes to dilute the resulting Nitrate from Nitrobacter. Of course, there are many methods of 'closing the loop' of the Nitrogen cycle. What I mean, is Oxidizing Ammonia all the way down to N2, which is Nitrogen gas.

In well-planted freshwater aquariums, it's the plants that metabolize the Nitrate. In reef aquaria, it's the organisms on and in the live rock and sand that Oxidize the Nitrate for its Nitrogen atom, again resulting in Nitrogen Gas.

Nitrate reactors are the same process; the bacteria within them uses Oxygen to reduce the Nitrate to gas, but those bacteria have to be fed, either with a dilute alcohol solution or commercially produced objects placed within the bed of the reactor. Balls of Sulphur and Iron Oxide pellets are the two most common media for a Nitrate reactor.

The reactors are most commonly used in large tanks with large fish to keep Nitrate from becoming a problem. A reactor, properly maintained, can keep said tank at zero Nitrate as long as one wishes.

Though they aren't as common as they once were, plenums, which are an open space under the substrate, are very efficient in Oxidizing Nitrate. The Nitrifying bacteria that exist in that space do so in say, .02-2.0 ppm Oxygen.

Obviously in reef or marine aquariums with larger or more numerous tanks can mean live rock and sand aren't enough to Oxidize all the Nitrate, a plenum may be the answer. Of course, plenums can be used in FW tanks as well, since Nitrate reactors may be 'too much' for the amount of Nitrate produced in Aquariums.

Sorry for the lecture, as per usual I went off on a tangent.

Dave

[tanks4thememories]

It's instantaneous; the bacteria are obligate. The more Ammonia you have the more Nitrifying bacteria you have, so the processing power of each is limitless. Though, as I said, they split to procreate slowly, meaning it can be ten hours or more for a colony to, say, double, to adapt to more Ammonia.

All Nitrifying bacteria use Oxygen to Oxidize the Nitrogen. In FW, most do partial water changes to dilute the resulting Nitrate from Nitrobacter. Of course, there are many methods of 'closing the loop' of the Nitrogen cycle. What I mean, is Oxidizing Ammonia all the way down to N2, which is Nitrogen gas.

In well-planted freshwater aquariums, it's the plants that metabolize the Nitrate. In reef aquaria, it's the organisms on and in the live rock and sand that Oxidize the Nitrate for its Nitrogen atom, again resulting in Nitrogen Gas.

Nitrate reactors are the same process; the bacteria within them uses Oxygen to reduce the Nitrate to gas, but those bacteria have to be fed, either with a dilute alcohol solution or commercially produced objects placed within the bed of the reactor. Balls of Sulphur and Iron Oxide pellets are the two most common media for a Nitrate reactor.

The reactors are most commonly used in large tanks with large fish to keep Nitrate from becoming a problem. A reactor, properly maintained, can keep said tank at zero Nitrate as long as one wishes.

Though they aren't as common as they once were, plenums, which are an open space under the substrate, are very efficient in Oxidizing Nitrate. The Nitrifying bacteria that exist in that space do so in say, .02-2.0 ppm Oxygen.

Obviously in reef or marine aquariums with larger or more numerous tanks can mean live rock and sand aren't enough to Oxidize all the Nitrate, a plenum may be the answer. Of course, plenums can be used in FW tanks as well, since Nitrate reactors may be 'too much' for the amount of Nitrate produced in Aquariums.

Sorry for the lecture, as per usual I went off on a tangent.

Dave

No need for apologies bro, you touched on most of the stuff I am researching. I always enjoy hearing from someone who knows what they are talking about. I have been researching denitrators and plenums.

[Tetris]

Ok... Next question...

I have a 1lb box of type 304L stainless steel nails, there are 94 nails in the box, and the cost of the box is $8.61

The steel contains 0.02% Carbon.

What is the cost of 1 carbon atom, assuming there is no corrosion on any of the nails? :hmm3grin2orange:

[Bristley]

I came up with 7 (units are in question).


ok, really if I did it right, and trust me that's a big IF, I come up with

1.8929528228901e-21 cents per carbon atom.

[rich311k]

but are there any carbon isotopes mixed in the carbon?

[Bristley]

It was just stated as carbon, so I had to make some assumptions. So I used the standard atomic mass units for carbon 12 at 12.011.

Again my calculations came with that big IF for the doing it right part.

[Tetris]

You guys make me lol :hmm3grin2orange:

I wasn't planning to actually bother working this question out, but since you have, I'll work it out and get back to you on my answer as well...

I should have thrown in isotopes, that woulda made things more interesting I guess...

I'll have to expand on this question 'till I've created the ultimate headache inducing word problem ever written...

[Bristley]

I'll work it out and get back to you on my answer as well...

$10.00 says that your answer turns out to be more accurate than mine.:18:

[HorrorShowRot]

All I have to say is wow.... And this is what we do in our spare time when were not watching the tanks:D

[Tetris]

Ok... My desktop calculator wont work with numbers to that many decimal points...

I'll dig through my old school supplies and see if I can't pull out my good old scientific calculator...

[Tetris]

453.592g x 0.0002 = 0.0907g of Carbon in 1lbs of nails

0.0907g
---------------- = 0.0076mol of C in 1lbs of nails
12.01g/mol

0.0076mol x (6.0221415 x 10^23) atoms/mol = 4.57682754e+21 atoms of C in 1lbs of nails

$8.61
------------------------ = 1.88121573835837e-21 dollars/atom
4.57682754e+21

1.88121573835837e-21 x 100 = 1.88121573835837e-19 cents/atom

I narrowed it down to cents/atom since you gave your answer in cents... I think you forgot to factor in the difference between dollars and cents in your final answer...
But wouldn't you know proper rounding technique is the one thing I DON'T remember from chemistry... So y'know... I showed my work, and I think our answers are within the margin of error given my (and possibly your) unconventional use of rounding... ;)

Anyone else actually try to solve this and want to chime in?

[Tetris]

$8.61 x 0.0002 = $0.001722 of C in 1lbs of nails

4.57682754e+21 x 1.88121573835837e-21 = 8.61000000000002e+21

*scratch* hmmmm... Think I went wrong somewhere... Boy this takes me back...

[Tetris]

Correction...

$0.001722
------------------------ = 3.76243147671673e-25 dollars/atom
4.57682754e+21

Since I didn't list specific costs of each component of the nails, and since the nails are 0.02% carbon, it would be assumed that 0.02% of the cost of the nails is the total value of the carbon in the nails.

Now it actually works when you proof check it...

[Crispy]

Awesome stuff Dave! Very interesting, although the variables are limitless.

In a very well established tank, there will be alot of biofilm on decor and such that will also help the nigtrogen cycle along. Some of my decor is so old, it's almost like a thin layer of carpet in some places. The plecos love it, but it comes back quickly.

My bioload is off the charts in my tank, yet my filtration (with a ton of biomedia), biofilm, and waterchanges keep my fish very healthy. I wouldn't dare try my stocking in a new tank.

Did anyone but Dave try to answer this?? lol.....

[tanks4thememories]

Did anyone but Dave try to answer this?? lol.....

I think Dave is the only one of us with the equipment and know how to answer this....lol