Misinformation and cycling your new nano reef tank

[brandon429]

I knew the API portion was the weak link in the reference post. The rest has results to the degree that anything shy of a comparative link of mixed tank cycling will not look convincing


Being able to run group b even after shipping is possible without a test kit, it's the only way I've ever reefed and the biology is scalable and documented we try to show it works in jar reefs or full sized tanks

work done in others tanks and compiled is different than posting formal links and reflections on our own tanks imo, the things it seems like I'm making up are the minute details I see over the years that do disagree with much of our approaches to cycling.

critiques that don't show how a person made group changes with their claim seem very safe zone, I estimate we skip cycled at least 5 grand worth of other people's money in the reference thread from first post and that's only one of the threads using coralline as the basis for all we did. A more accurate reference (tested in tanks) for group B rock biology would be gold (or purple) standard relevance linked anytime.

Someone unable to apply a low level reading to a cycle. Causing seeming stalled cycle
http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/376323-water-results-help/#entry5386055

 

 

averted from the dreaded sustained .25

http://reef2reef.com/threads/week-3-cycle.268659/#post-3215569

[seabass]

Brandon, what is a skip cycle?

you have presented though that fanworms stay open, fish won't pant, and corals stay open and that low level ammonia indicated by API is reliable and that you expect things to live, not die, in the presence of true low level ammonia as my takeaway understanding.

I know that neither of us would advocate fish being intentionally exposed to any amount of ammonia (and therefore wouldn't support using them as a visual cue for the presence of ammonia). I'm just speculating that the API test is picking up on small amounts of ammonia or ammonium, and that people are interpreting the results to be 0.25 ppm (when in reality, the level of total ammonia is actually lower, maybe much lower).

 

I'm not sure what the total ammonia level would have to be to demonstrate active pods and open fan worms, and still produce a positive reading from an API test kit. I just feel that it's possible (based partly on the threads that you report experience this combination). Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, and the presence of visual cues negates the possibility that any form of ammonia is present.

[OllieNZ]

Regarding the rock above and the trick ability, that isn't bright like living coralline and it will bleach differently

A zircon looks like a diamond to a non jeweler. I feel our example pics in the thread show details to prevent trickery, any counter claim made here should be specific to a portion of the reference thread so it can be tested. coralline correlational to full bac complement is my core tenet

 

we provided a list well beyond coralline for that post above about how dry coralline looks like real coralline, and no lfs I know rips people off if they ask for live rock but for the purposes of making a web post point I can see the point. We are not turning out lesser able cyclers in the thread, we want them keen to verifications not required by purchasing something. Eyes and nose works

 

 

That particular rock is encrusted with now dead coralline, it looks much pinker under my T5's. I have a good relationship with my lfs. I know the rocks origin and also knew it had been dry long enough to be dead as a doornail. I like your jeweler analogy, as new to salt water but experienced fresh water hobbyist I've been spending a lot of time educating myself as best I can. Unfortunately many people getting into the hobby have nil experience and like the non jeweler buy things that look good but aren't necessarily any good.

[vegasgundog]

Posting this in reference to api....

 

 

 

So this is from the e260 using api and red Sea. Nothing in the e260 shows any sign of distress, I was just going to do a water change, it's first since adding live stock exactly 7days ago. I planned on using a portion of the water in my bc29 that running as a quarantine tank. So which one do I trust? Mind spinning. Observation of e260 continues with no distress but I'm momentarily glued to it. Would you chalk this up as api failure or am I misunderstanding the red Sea results and should be more concerned?

[seabass]

Both tests show ammonia, so that's a concern. It looks like API might be reporting around 0.5 ppm.

 

Although the picture makes it appear that Red Sea is reporting 0.2, the color between 0.2 and 0.4 is pretty hard for me to distinguish between.

 

While that's potentially quite a disparity, I'm not sure if it matters that much. One or both results might be off slightly, but they both show the presence of ammonia.

[brandon429]

hey these last posts are just great thanks for the input

 

I actually played in the water this weekend vs phone reefing, first 3 day break since like 07 not bad, that's not obsessive reef posting history or anything.

 

you can get this thing called a sunburn by not posting on the internet a lot.

 

Glad to have those comparison pics

 

Vegas can you get us a tank shot that correlates with your reading, and in fact an updated reading a few days later, same kits. nice comparison gold there

 

I think to make this thread something unique, if your live rock pics show open animals in the tank (where i claim isn't ammonia) and coralline, and if both kits show a sustained low level ammonia production (different kits same indication, in favor of) even after a few days that puts claims head to head and is overall beneficial. if you had a way to have someone else nearby test a sample that would be neat, maybe a LFS with their gear even if same brands. a tie back into what's thriving or declining in the tank is ideal via pics

 

 

had considered the idea of mailing me a sample to work but there could be changes interim inside the sample (suspended bac are there) its best to verify on site as possible.

 

 

If your test kits show a marked reduction back to zero, then we trace out a source of rot/death/degredation in the tank just having completed recently...needs to be pretty significant to hold for days in a row and never hit a solid 1ppm.

[seabass]

Brandon, I performed a few more tests with my current API ammonia kit. I thought you might be interested in the results:

I've seen forum posts where the line is off before too, so I thought I'd do a little experiment. Here's an API tube that I filled using 5 ml from a syringe:

As you can see, it is a little off (assuming I accurately measured). So would this make any appreciable difference to the test results? Let's take a look.

I filled three API test tubes (yeah, I've purchased multiple API ammonia kits throughout the years, so I have a few) to 6 ml, 5 ml, and 4 ml respectively. Then I added the instructed 8 drops of each reagent to each tube, to perform an ammonia test.

It's not daylight yet, so I'm stuck with indoor lighting and the resulting shadows, but you get the idea. As you can see, the color is just slightly more intense on the 4 ml sample compared to the 6 ml sample; but the color doesn't really change (at least with my samples, which should have very low ammonia levels).

 

I suppose that the result of samples, that contain ammonia, might be different. However, with ammonia, we are more concerned about the presence of it than the actual numerical value. But still, later today, I'll dose some ammonia into some saltwater and repeat the experiment.

 

So here is the follow up. I filled a 5 gallon bucket with tank water from my 100 gallon reef, and added two drops of Dr.Tim's Ammonium Chloride to the bucket. Then I consecutively performed three API ammonia tests on that water (using 6 ml, 5 ml, and 4 ml samples respectively). Here is that result:


I further added three more drops of Dr.Tim's Ammonium Chloride to the bucket and consecutively performed three more API ammonia tests on the water (again using samples of 6 ml, 5 ml, and 4 ml). In this test, I noticed that the 6 ml sample took a little longer to darken than the other two samples, but by the 5 minute mark the results looked like this:


As you can see, even with a significant difference in tank water sample size, the results look fairly similar.

[squamptonbc]

I like this post.

 

One issue I have with stores these days is their so called live rock, and in my view really isn't live rock in the sense of what wild live rock used to be and the life forms it had on it. And is just basically dry rock thats been submerged for a time, but has none of the life real live rock had, yes real stuff had some undesirables at times, but I would take that risk over this stuff.

 

 

This is the stuff I am talking about.

 

http://realreefrock.com/product-line

 

Seems to work in the sense there is no ammonia in the tank, but in another sense the stuff is fugly and looks fake.

[metrokat]

I like this post.

 

One issue I have with stores these days is their so called live rock, and in my view really isn't live rock in the sense of what wild live rock used to be and the life forms it had on it. And is just basically dry rock thats been submerged for a time, but has none of the life real live rock had, yes real stuff had some undesirables at times, but I would take that risk over this stuff.

 

 

This is the stuff I am talking about.

 

http://realreefrock.com/product-line

 

Seems to work in the sense there is no ammonia in the tank, but in another sense the stuff is fugly and looks fake.

RRR is made using molds, it's pretty dense rock, and not porus like say pukani or natural rock is.

[squamptonbc]

I gathered it was pretty dense when i first held it. I really hate, but gotta make due with what is available. Don't have all the options the US does.

 

 

RRR is made using molds, it's pretty dense rock, and not porus like say pukani or natural rock is.

[jshev]

Just a question for anyone who is experienced enough to answer. Can I begin my cycle with out my LED light. It wont be here for about four days, but I have dry rock and live sand so I want to begin the process ASAP. Thanks

[seabass]

Just a question for anyone who is experienced enough to answer. Can I begin my cycle with out my LED light. It wont be here for about four days, but I have dry rock and live sand so I want to begin the process ASAP. Thanks

Certainly. Light is not required for nitrifying bacteria. I would add some Dr.Tim's One and Only, then start dosing Dr.Tim's Ammonium. Here's a guide on how to dose ammonium: http://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/fishless-cycling

[jshev]

Certainly. Light is not required for nitrifying bacteria. I would add some Dr.Tim's One and Only, then start dosing Dr.Tim's Ammonium. Here's a guide on how to dose ammonium: http://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/fishless-cycling

Thanks for the info!

[seabass]

Brandon, here (http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/375175-how-many-water-changes-has-one-made-in-a-day-hhheeeaaaalllllppp/) is an excellent example of using an API test kit on a tank with a mixture of cured group B rock, and uncured group A rocks (including pictures of the group B rocks and test results). The ammonia level seemed to stall out at 0.25ppm. Sound familiar? Even had an API hater jump in the thread.

 

I instructed her move the group A rocks into a separate container, to remove the ammonia source from her display tank (as it had livestock in it). She continued testing and posting results, clearly showing the ammonia level becoming undetectable in the display, while climbing above 1ppm in the container with the group A rocks that were removed.

[brandon429]

I specifically see how her ammonia can look .25 or zero, both in that pic.

 

post 33 looks .25 to me, just under a post up above it where she has notable group b living verifiers, and in the early pics there were group b too

 

 

was that live sand she started with

 

 

it looks not stalled imo

 

Here's one not as clear

http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/376043-has-my-tank-cycled/?p=5380735

[brandon429]

we wanted to get away from test reliance as much as possible and that's why I didn't press API as hard for accuracy when we can use visuals and known timeframes in place and tests w verifiers

 

shes not verifying her tests, to me that matters if we are to run solely off them, that's what replaced API detailing.

 

that would be a way the thread differs from her cycle, she was unsure most of the cycle and didn't cross verify, those seem like the simplest changes we could do to streamline cycles in the hobby.

 

I think API shows marked spikes well enough to use, clearly its ok for you and I myself can see how people would see zero or .25 in those pics too.

 

we want to get towards biology in my ref thread so that these nuances never make a cycle seem noncompliant. we think they are predictable depending on rock arrangements so its fun to keep testing

 

good posts all, keep any aspect of cycle carving coming w examples.

[seabass]

I specifically see how her ammonia can look .25 or zero, both in that pic. post 33 looks .25 to me, just under a post up above it where she has notable group b living verifiers, and in the early pics there were group b too... so it seems it didn't stall, is what im thinking

Here's a summary. Prior to adding the dry rock, the tank was cycled, and ammonia was undetectable.

• 7/7 (day 1) added dry rock
• 7/11 (day 4, post #1) ammonia 0.5ppm
• 7/12 (day 5, post #8) added Prime and did a water change, ammonia 0.25ppm
• 7/13 (day 6, #19) ammonia 0.25ppm
• 7/13 (day 6, post #27) pics of group B rocks

 

• 7/14 (day 7, post #33) removed Group A rocks, pics of API tests, ammonia 0.25ppm

• 7/14 (day 7, post #37) water change, pics of API tests, ammonia 0.25ppm (rock water 0.5ppm ammonia)

• 7/15 (day 8, post #42) pics of API tests, ammonia less than 0.25ppm (rock water 1.0ppm)

• 7/17 (day 10, post #47) pics of API tests, ammonia is undetectable (rock water over 1ppm)

[brandon429]

yes helpful summary

 

Where did the ammonia come from for the sustained run if it was already cycled? I didn't see lots of dried jerky type material on the dry rocks to rehydrate/rot

[seabass]

The tank was cycled with the group B rocks (before adding the dry rock), and like you, the LFS didn't think there was enough organic material to cause an ammonia spike. However, I've found that rocks that look clean can generate a ton of ammonia. Here are a series of posts where I tested some dry rock: http://www.nano-reef.com/topic/301861-100-gallons-behind-a-wall/page-3#entry4329443

 

This rock was previously pressure washed clean.

 

Here is the rock after soaking overnight.

 

After 6 days the ammonia was about 2ppm (and phosphate was 0.23ppm).

[brandon429]

why was yours so marked, and hers only .25

 

Her pics look both zero and .25 I don't see case closed at all

 

Was her sand love from start

[seabass]

Well, all rock is different. But to clarify. Her display tank spiked up to 0.5ppm (she got it down to 0.25 with Prime and a water change). After she separated the new rock into another container, the ammonia in that container rose to over 1ppm by day 3:

[brandon429]

I'm amazed someone discerned that color to be over 1, I wouldn't, it looks lower to me and that's the color guess game.
Showing a spike off uncured rock seems ok to me either way though, it would be the live portion doing that which would seem at odds.

The reason API has the search returns it does is from people getting opposite results of yours, posting your findings might slowly bring about change though if you can get others to replicate the API results. no test kit was critical to our thread though after changes... biology is what cycles those tanks and known timeframes, and how group B rock nearly always transfers without dieoff vs the old thought of it usually causing dieoff, that was our main change to the norm.

uncured rock having variability in ammonia leaking makes sense to me.

This shows API ammonia inaccuracies others get so the skepticism prevails.
http://www.reef2reef.com/threads/api-test-kit-says-high-nitrates.259615/

It's not that your readings are off, it's getting 18/20 testers to show that kind of accuracy. to me a simple solution is take no action until low level readings are verified with tests designed for repeated accurate low level readings.

 

[seabass]

I'm amazed someone discerned that color to be over 1, I wouldn't

IDK; it's hard for me to determine an exact numerical value, especially when it's between values. I suppose that could be as low as 0.5ppm.

I based it off the fact that it was darker than 1ppm on the chart. However, you might get a more conclusive result with different lighting or viewing angle.