Jump to content

brandon429

Recommended Posts

On 10/19/2022 at 11:01 AM, brandon429 said:

anyone reading, anyone, link here the messiest most broke cycles you can find as an internet thread from any era whatsoever. as a link

 

our thread would benefit from seeing link examples of what anyone deems a broken, unable cycle. not just about to crash/and API is warning us/ but actually dead and crashed/ cycle failed. 

You are asking anyone for an example in order to benefit this thread.  The following case is not a tank crash, but a practical example of an ammonia spike in a tank with a working biofilter.  I'll attempt to limit my response to this particular case.

 

https://www.nano-reef.com/forums/topic/424886-sudden-tank-crash/

 

This is a fairly recent example of elevated ammonia levels (not a false reading, and not a tank crash either).  The rise in nitrate confirmed the increase in total nitrogen (nitrite and nitrate, in addition to ammonia).  It's an example of how an added ammonia source can be picked up by a traditional ammonia kit, without the tank suffering any losses.  Although this spike happened to be high enough that there were some visual signs of a problem (most other cases don't show visible signs of distress and can be more easily dismissed).

 

As you say, bacteria don't stop working inside of a running tank.  But the nitrifying bacteria populations adjust to the amount of ammonia being produced (the bio-load).  So when the heterotrophic bacteria have a substantial new source of dead organics to break down, an ammonia spike can occur (at least until the organics are broken down, or the elevated bacteria populations can process the additional ammonia).  These spikes are similar to spikes caused by the die off due to shipping live rock, damp but not submerged (where the nitrifying bacteria remain, but some other life is lost during transport).

 

You happened to weigh in on this particular example.  And while I agree with much of what you posted, I disagree with your saying that it was test misread due to using traditional test kits to identify the problem.  The other nitrogen tests verified that this wasn't a testing error.  Unfortunately this example got a bit clouded by our back and forth; so Morpheous77 and I continued to message until the spike was through.  The actual cause was never positively identified, but that doesn't dismiss what was demonstrated.

 

I get that my responses to your statements about digital vs traditional testing might have came across as being adversarial.  I was primarily looking looking for a better understanding of why you think that these tests might not agree.  I guess that we might have carried some of that contention over to this thread; sorry.  But I hope that this case provides the example you were asking for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

 I knew when you posted it would be a link, thank you very much- reading now. I asked for links, you gave one that's appreciated. The pattern can begin, this is a fair thing to inspect.

 

 

 I honestly do not expect a landslide of reef posters to give these, and I don't think it's bad form if you have eight more I think any good science should invite the opposing view- wanted. gracias.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment

For balance I'm going to put out my chat where I took a poster who wrote a failed cycle thread here, with fish loss on day one, and he was at day 30 of a bottle bac cycle-so that set off rule alarms. 

 

we know how the thread went...all posters agree .5 killed the fish obviously. no running reef can post .5 on api, .25 is the limit even the most flexible cycle umpires will accept as not toxic.

 

it makes sense why the general public would not challenge an API kit much further than .25, the standard we were given yesteryear was zero. .25 is being flexible lol. 

 

 

 

but in chat, he was rolling back open the bag and floating for hours without telling us as his assumed best acclimation practices.  Ammonia was the kill-but not from within the tank.

 

 

I told this reefer to take a baggie of his water to the pet store to buy two more fish and add his water right there, the suspect kill water, to the fish and bring home and net over. this equalized any salinity issues right off the bat close enoughish for common pet store clowns. 

 

fixed. 

 

that does not mean all fish losses can't be ammonia noncontrol

 

It means that 100% of early fish loss threads will blame ammonia and I must get darn lucky to find the real causes

 

 

 

 

once we're up to ten links here, 5, I really will be interested to see loss details. I appreciate getting to see one above. 

 

 

 

20221020_092004.thumb.jpg.ed06e9d10075faa90393a5eee8d7ec57.jpg

 

20221020_092349.thumb.jpg.136411876758c8f589511e6bf28ed54d.jpg

 

he had an anemone living fine in his tank, that was also a marker noted for him being cycled that a crowd will never factor, it's all about the test kit. anything the api test kit says simply can't be challenged, .5 means broken cycle to most

 

 

 

in ~2017 ish reef2reef there was a day 1 repeated clownfish death post, any repeat clown he added died in a few hours twitching/ api .25 and we found that one to be a custom sump sealed with mold proof silicone, the instantly lethal kind. it took to page nine of the common warring to arrive there and only bc he mentioned it in passing during the thread battle. Nobody peels an onion in early fish loss posts and I surely don't remember to ask folks what kind of silicone they use heh

 

too many layers to peel on some onions

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 10/20/2022 at 9:17 AM, brandon429 said:

we know how the thread went...all posters agree .5 killed the fish obviously. no running reef can post .5 on api, .25 is the limit even the most flexible cycle umpires will accept as not toxic.

 

it makes sense why the general public would not challenge an API kit much further than .25, the standard we were given yesteryear was zero. .25 is being flexible lol. 

It sounds like these posters have a critical misunderstanding about the toxicity of NH3.  A total ammonia level of 0.5 ppm (or about 0.03 ppm of NH3 at typical reef tank pH levels) wouldn't normally cause noticeable problems.  It reflects a relatively benign elevation in ammonia (certainly not lethal at these levels of temporary exposure).  So I understand your frustration here.

 

That was a good catch on acclimation (and possibly stress from collection and shipping).  I also applaud your efforts to point out that nearly all of these fish loss threads (which blame ammonia for the loss), have other explanations (like parasites, disease, collection techniques, injuries, stress, etc).  There's often way too much focus on ammonia.  Although I don't discount its importance, or what it might tell us about the current state of our tanks.

 

On 10/20/2022 at 9:17 AM, brandon429 said:

we start all stuck cycle threads from the perspective: is yours about to be the first the hobby has ever seen? our chances are this good?

 

that may seem brash, but when we read my reef2reef examples coming up/already posted/that's the angle every first post I made came from: you are not the first broken cycle ever seen in reefing, you're just applying old cycling science to your tank and it's causing you to buy things you don't need to be buying. 

I totally agree that cycles don't break.  But occasionally, we can still detect elevated levels for a variety of reasons.  Most of these events are harmless.  But a fundamental misunderstanding (which has been propagated throughout the internet) causes people to worry unnecessarily.  For this reason, I like that this thread helps dispel the myth that these low (but detectable) levels of total ammonia cause noticeable harm.

 

Your approach is to encourage people to ignore the positive results from traditional test kits, while mine is to explain that these levels are real, but typically harmless.  I realize that my understanding of these events differs from yours; but in the end, the outcome is basically the same.  So in this thread, I'll try not to get too off track debating who (or what test) might be more accurate.

 

We're both fairly passionate about this subject.  And I'm sorry that we butted heads earlier.  I also appreciate the respect that you've shown me recently, and I'll try to respond in kind.  I don't see any reason why we can't get along (even if we don't, or might not ever, totally agree).  There are no hard feelings on my end.

Link to comment

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/adding-ammonia-to-established-tank-for-nitrate-control.940647/#post-10698511
 

 

sheer lucky timing. 
 

What cycle proofing across reef tanks can we discern from a seneye owner who doses cycling ammonia into his reef multiple times over and over 

 

as he compares to api, and seachem alert badge. These are the gold flecks for the panning across cycle posts, you can’t get this stuff from google scholar. Industry is shaped by these posts above 

 

we learn how ammonia test kits resolve against the grand umpire.

 

 

We learn if they indicate known rises, dosed amounts compared to digital tracking and we also get their resolve rate.

 

 

see his rock stack ratio compared to yours, mine, everyone’s reef

 

even though we don’t have a seneye we have everything else he has, minus the huge + blast of ammonia + the tanks internal ammonia generation on its own.

 

because his tank resolves blast ammonia over and over and over and no animals die, along with his daily feed and cumulative waste generated, we all do. Our tanks only have to handle their own waste, not extra. Watch out for posts who seem to indicate ammonia control outside the known dates from a cycling chart, be suspect of their testing not suspect about the biology.
 

 

We don’t need to own the seneye to relay its readings onto any other rock stacker with a few fish kicking around. That’s a big deal thread building, anyone who likes updated cycling science has to like that thread 

 

 

when someone is posting a thread stating their cycle is broken, it’s simply not, because of threads like that above.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
On 10/20/2022 at 6:13 PM, brandon429 said:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/adding-ammonia-to-established-tank-for-nitrate-control.940647/#post-10698511
 

 

sheer lucky timing. 
 

What cycle proofing across reef tanks can we discern from a seneye owner who doses cycling ammonia into his reef multiple times over and over 

 

as he compares to api, and seachem alert badge. These are the gold flecks for the panning across cycle posts, you can’t get this stuff from google scholar. Industry is shaped by these posts above 

 

we learn how ammonia test kits resolve against the grand umpire.

 

 

We learn if they indicate known rises, dosed amounts compared to digital tracking and we also get their resolve rate.

 

 

see his rock stack ratio compared to yours, mine, everyone’s reef

 

even though we don’t have a seneye we have everything else he has, minus the huge + blast of ammonia + the tanks internal ammonia generation on its own.

 

because his tank resolves blast ammonia over and over and over and no animals die, along with his daily feed and cumulative waste generated, we all do. Our tanks only have to handle their own waste, not extra. Watch out for posts who seem to indicate ammonia control outside the known dates from a cycling chart, be suspect of their testing not suspect about the biology.
 

 

We don’t need to own the seneye to relay its readings onto any other rock stacker with a few fish kicking around. That’s a big deal thread building, anyone who likes updated cycling science has to like that thread 

 

 

when someone is posting a thread stating their cycle is broken, it’s simply not, because of threads like that above.

 

 

Thanks so much for posting this.  It's such a perfect example of what I've been talking about, that I simply had to respond.  It doesn't disprove you're core points, while it helps to illustrate my point.  And I hope that it can provide some common ground going forward.

 

Notice that the poster used the ammonia calculator to determine just how much ammonia was needed to raise total ammonia by 0.5 ppm.  This amount was reflected by the API test kit.  There were no false readings; it responded as anticipated.

 

Also notice that it took a few hours (not minutes) before the ammonia level became undetectable again.  And this spike was caused by a single addition of ammonia (not a source which was continuing to produce additional ammonia).  A prolonged input of ammonia would have extended the period of elevated ammonia (until either the additional input was gone, or the nitrifying bacteria populations adjusted to the new source of ammonia).

 

The Seneye Monitor promptly detected the added ammonia.  It was speculated (in that thread) that the high initial value was due to dosing the ammonia near the monitor.  However, I suspect that it was simply registering the NH3 concentration before the conversion to NH4 was complete.  Notice that the next reading reflected the conversion (while API confirmed that total ammonia was still largely unchanged).

 

The API testing gave us a visual record of how the nitrifying bacteria processed total ammonia, while the Seneye Monitor charted NH3 (I was impressed by the Seneye's performance).  And when you consider that it was reported that the Seneye's pH reading had recently been off (and was in need of trimming/calibration), I believe that API and Seneye reported ammonia levels that were basically in agreement.

 

The Ammonia Alert badge isn't capable of detecting the low levels that Seneye can.  And since the Seachem badge only shows a positive result above 0.02 ppm of NH3, we wouldn't expect to see it respond, except for the brief period of time just after dosing (but before the full conversion of NH3 to NH4).  Again, Seneye confirmed the result that we would expect from the Ammonia Alert badge.

Link to comment
TheCoffeeReef

Brief update all; coming up on 1 month running. There's been no losses from the livestock and more has been added (see my journal page for details so I don't clog up this thread). No big outbreaks of algae that's unexpected and more life appears, some small copepods and possibly baby snails.

 

I've included a couple of images, although a good FTS will have to be added.

 

 

Dootlantis .jpg

GSP Macro Polyp-01.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/tank-disaster.937339/

 

 

 

Coffee that's a fine link to add to our resources. Noticed it is seneye govered, therefore all cycle umpires are in calm cool agreement. if it was api, or red sea governed, they'd be on their fourth bottle of cycling bac added in response. 

 

 

this is a direct example on how accurate ammonia testing allows for factual disease controls to be implemented. without seneye: madness, everyone flinch-buys bottle bac simply because his losses were timed with a tank transfer. 

 

I had asked for tank transfer jobs along the way here/cycle control challenge. Tamberav is right above that's a messy transfer, who partially rinses a bed in saltwater (which leaves a lot of muck still inside) and then puts it back into a tank? we never will

 

our rinses will be thorough, mean, and certainly cloudless at the end. That above shows that even in a messy transfer, ammonia is not an issue. ammonia control is not an issue in reefing, there's a small seneye snippet above we can pattern against non seneye tanks who will be perpetually in distress about their cycle. he even has fish death happening in the tank, and .01 increment nh3 up (which a heavy feeding run could accomplish temporarily) is the worst he saw

 

the good meter helped them stay focused on actual fish disease is the entire point of reference. 

 

He is directly demonstrating active cycle control. he's not panicking while fish are dying, and he's able to attack the actual cause vs a groupthink cause having nothing to do with his fish losses. He's applying updated cycling science because bottle bac isn't being reactively added in panic to a fully cycled reef. he has zero ammonia doubt; that's updated cycling science. 

 

for our thread: even if he did not own a seneye the analysis doesn't change. we merely got lucky he had one, to validate the rule of what swirling water does among cycled rock stacks. 

 

even if he reported the dreaded red sea .2 panic color, we would react the same. we only got -lucky- there was a seneye to confirm, if there wasn't, I'd have assured the reefer ammonia isn't an issue not that it can't be produced in a messy transfer, BUT that we have already tracked it's resolve rate (see below) and it's 5 mins per blast dose. you may have had ammonia, but in 5 mins of tank current distribution and rock contact you sure did not, proof below:

 

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/does-anyone-dose-ammonia-and-or-how-would-one-try.770535/

 

that is several different display reef tanks dosing liquid ammonia while they're fully stocked, and seneye shows just a few mins to total resolve / maybe an hour at most for some depending on slide tuning. 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

It is interesting to note that cycling hasn't been given any room for advancement or evolution in reefing, all articles and write ups I'm seeing are rehashing of 1999

 

What if our lighting was still 1999 metal halides only or vho, no led

 

What if we all still thought deep sand beds are required by law

 

Disease preps sure are underway evolving; in 1999 we were all spoiled for lack of the need

 

Computing speed, download speed all evolving/ moores law

 

But cycling? Still a graph from 1959. No adaptation of disease trending in initial prep, no statement about the four million completed and safe fish + bottle bac cycles, only rehashed fear of ammonia and nitrite stalling.  No discussion about how reef conventions full of sellers pull off skip cycling for thirty straight years: forum readers get the serf mode/ permanent doubt entrained, permanent dependence on testing mode, inability to predict ammonia without a test kit mode. 

 

 

writers repost works from others. I see zero innovation and new material on cycling articles, nothing reflects today's changes

 

To exclude what digital ammonia testing shows, in trending from thousands of posts regarding day 1 cycle readings, can't be considered up-to-date information. 

 

One of the strongest tells a reader can use to discern old cycling science from new is that old cycling science will never ever ever state a guaranteed start date for a reef tank. With them it's always open- ended wait and a fear consequence (burned fish) if you don't comply. 

 

Meanwhile

Sellers at the reef convention have no trouble, ever, not ever, setting up those beautiful and complete instant reefs always on time/no fails/no stalls/nobody packs up and heads home in shame with the failed cycle we routinely read about in forums. Many are bottle bac displays too with dry rocks and clownfish doing fine at the convention.... bc they're not burning. the real world demonstrates total command over ammonia 100% of the time. total prediction on its compliance date (Friday, start of the convention 200 full reefs align and appear and no, they don't have an expired cycle coming up because it was fast)

 

Evolution in reef tank cycling appears to be the slowest granted change of any aspect in reefing. I wonder why? who benefits if forum cyclers are literally frozen in fear about a legitimate no-burn start date and well versed on cycle stalling (and how to remedy that with a click buy)

 

To place ammonia control fear above the actual risk of fish disease loss by skipping fallow and quarantine is so very much old cycling science. Failure to mention disease preps in the first paragraph of any cycling article is a harbinger of resistance to change in cycling evolution even though all other aspect of reefing are 25 years modded by now.

 

Reef tank cycles don't stall, that's a sales pitch. Stalling means some of the sellers couldn't make a convention

 

They always make the convention

 

then they skip cycle move unsold stock back home

 

they skip cycle all day long. A reefing article needs to tell us about certain/guaranteed skip cycling via live rock transfer

 

-what we really get is you must TEST to see if it worked, because you might get a mini cycle (fear, consequence clause found in all old cycling science articles)

 

(mini cycling is made up and never found in a thread where a tuned seneye is running)

 

Any article in reefing that hints or expressly warns of ammonia or nitrite stalling is a rehashed sales gimmick. Only buyers get stalled cycles. This needs to be the opening line in whatever the next accepted reef cycle article will be. 

 

Forum cyclers:

please buy a seneye if you  want to see without anyone's input what ammonia really does in a reef tank. 

 

then tell us what you found

 

Any article instructing readers on ammonia or reef tank cycling is invalid if that article does not mention what digital ammonia nh3 meters show reef tanks do with ammonia, and how fast they do it. a legit article is required to contrast the changing knowledge associated with reef tank cycling as it pertains to digital testing and nondigital testing. 

 

any hint that nitrite testing is required in a display tank cycle for a reef is completely dated information or it comes from a bottle bac seller. the truth: whether nitrite is high or low in your cycle doesn't matter, don't test for it-focus all your efforts on disease preps. 

 

 

If there is zero mention of digital ammonia testing and how that contrasts from the days of analog ammonia testing in prep times, and the inherent nature of ammonia control in a reef display, then a given cycle article may well have just appeared in 1999 or today/nothing seems to have changed much if we believe this segment hasn't been evolving this entire time

 

google is littered with the proof that anyone who attempts a fish+ bottle bac cycle does fine, bottle bac works vs does not work. resistance or not, that's evolution in outcome. we don't have four million searchable failed cycles, we have four million+ easily completed cycles carring fish just fine (and panicking over nh4 which we don't expect to ever be zero: re new cycling science)

 

Look at this beautiful fish-in cycle planted nano

 

you cant burn neon tetras and still have them eat, feed, swim and act normally. skip cycling is today/waiting 30 days requisite is completely 1970's mentality regarding ammonia control

 

🙂

 

his addition of bottle bac at the end: not needed / waste / the tank would be fine without it. those plants are high surface area, filter-bacteria attached, already scrubbing ammonia either way. that last part where he lightly covers fish-in cycling, you can sense he has read flaming posts before. He goes ahead because he can see things are fine, he says some folks don't like fish-in cycling because anyone that ascribes to old cycling science surely does not, they're inflexible to all forms of evolution in practice. 

Link to comment

First, I believe that work threads can help people with their specific set of circumstances, as well helping others who are reading through these real world examples.  So I encourage these threads and won't interrupt those conversations.  Plus, I feel that the examples which you provide (like the freshwater video above) can help illustrate your point.

 

However, since I'm not aware of any other new articles on this site (or other sites), I assume that the above post is addressing my recent articles on cycling, ammonia, and testing.  So I'd like to briefly respond to help clarify.

 

Advancements: You are comparing technological advancements in lighting and computing speeds, to descriptions of biological and chemical processes which don't change.  Although your statement about deep sand beds is much more applicable.

 

Disease: This is a separate topic that would make an excellent article, as it can get pretty involved (even just the topic of quarantine).  It would be fair to address disease in an article which claims that fish losses are often due to ammonia toxicity (which I haven't claimed).

 

Digital Monitors: I don't view digital test kits much differently from traditional kits, except that they provide a higher resolution (which typically isn't very critical).  And in the case of Seneye (which requires calibration), it provides more continuous measurements, making it an interesting and informative (albeit expensive) tool, which can help shed light on the speed in which ammonia is oxidized.

 

Toxicity: NH3 is really only toxic in high concentrations, which explains being able to cycle with fish, and reef convention displays.  But that's not to discount the information which NH3 levels can provide, or even the potential danger of high concentrations.

 

Time Guarantees: While we can make assumptions which apply to most situations, there are still numerous variables that make it difficult to make absolute statements about timelines.  So many people still rely on testing to provide confirmation.  And while you might have seen other people warning about burned gills, my articles don't go there.

 

Stalled Cycles: I imagine that you see this claim much more than I do.  But we are in agreement that there is no such thing.  However, ammonia levels can linger for awhile based on current ammonia production and nitrifying bacteria populations.  But even in these cases, we see that nitrate continues to be produced throughout.

 

Cycling Products: I can see taking issue with companies that take advantage of reef keepers' fears.  Unfortunately, that's how many of them make money.  Usually these products have a purpose, but they get marketed in a way to sell even more units.  It's up to the consumers to do their due diligence, as well as educated posters to help inform new hobbyists.

 

Nitrifying Bacteria: Having read my articles, I know that you realize that I discussed transferring nitrifying bacteria on rocks (media, and other surfaces), as well as the use of bottled bacteria cultures.  These are things which can be (and often are) done by vendors to help control ammonia in their convention displays.

 

I understand that many of your observations are not specifically about my articles (which appear to get referenced throughout), and that they are more about posts which other people have made, repeating something they've previously read.  I just wanted to help clarify what my articles might or might not say.

 

Finally, I'd be happy to discuss any specific issues that you might have with my articles.  I'd even consider making changes where warranted.  If you wish, we could discuss them here, or in one of those threads (your call); but quote them directly, to eliminate any confusion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

 Brandon, your last post really got me wondering if maybe I should tweak my articles a bit to address some of your criticisms. 🤔

 

I started by trying to summarize (below) what you're calling the new science of cycling.  I hope that I didn't twist things around too much.  Let me know if it isn't fair or accurate, or if I'm missing something critical.

A New Take on Cycling:

  • Once nitrifying bacteria is present, ammonia spikes are rare.  But when they do occur, they are very short in duration, so they shouldn't concern us.  Fish losses are due to parasites and diseases due to the lack of quarantine, not ammonia toxicity.
  • Traditional ammonia test kits provide false readings and are better off ignored.  Ammonia testing should utilize a digital readout (like a Seneye Monitor) to be considered reliable.  Unexpected results from a Seneye Monitor are due to it needing to be trimmed (calibrated).
  • Cycle timelines don't change; and different types of dry rock can be treated similarly.  Dosing a nitrifying bacterial culture will instantly provide a working biofilter (reef convention style).  The guys on the TV show Tanked demonstrate this in every episode.

66942.jpg

 

The lack of fish losses proves the above to be true and positive ammonia test results from traditional kits to be false.  Fish are in no danger of being harmed by ammonia once nitrifying bacteria is present.

 

And while I feel there is some truth in the above summary, I thought about how I might revise it (stated below).

Ammonia Tolerance:

  • Fish losses as a direct result of ammonia poisoning are very rare.  Most losses in new tanks are due to parasites, disease, stress, and/or collection techniques.  Although elevated ammonia levels can increase stress.
  • Likewise, ammonia spikes in a mature tank are unusual.  They are a result in an increase in ammonia production (from the breakdown of dead organic matter).  And while these elevated ammonia levels rarely result in fish losses, identifying the cause can often help us better understand, care for, and maintain our reef tanks.
  • It can be useful to monitor ammonia levels when a tank is establishing its nitrogen cycle, as well as after an exceptional event (like a substantial death or a particularly disruptive maintenance/transfer event).  Either a digital or traditional ammonia test kit can be used to check ammonia levels.
  • General assumptions can usually be applied to common circumstances.  However, there are often too many variables to set absolute cycle timelines.  The amount of dead or dying organics (as well as the bio-load) will affect how much ammonia is produced and how much bacteria is required to process it.  This is true with either dry rock or live rock, and can affect the time to fully cure the rock and establish a working biofilter.
  • Nitrifying bacteria which is dosed, will immediately start to process ammonia.  However, the bacteria populations might need to further multiply in order to process all of the ammonia that is being produced.

bio-spira.thumb.jpg.ec0b9caa88ecbd15d43edc33e593b91c.jpg

 

 

The lack of fish losses shows us that our livestock is fairly tolerant to low levels of NH3 (free ammonia); so we shouldn't be overly concerned when a test result (especially a total ammonia result) comes back positive.  However, our goal should still be to keep ammonia levels to a minimum.

 

Like you, I  feel that misinformation about ammonia has been repeated until it has become commonly accepted.  So now I'm thinking that I should probably include some of the verbiage (in the revised version above) into my articles.  And while you might not totally agree with me, I feel that these edits would address a few of the valid points which you have brought up, and should ultimately improve the articles.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

This is the best cycle control work thread on nano-reef.com

 

https://www.nano-reef.com/forums/topic/393209-sadies-biocube-16/page/20/#comments

employs every method of ammonia prediction and testless cycle control we've been discussing. look at those results. 

 

we based no action on ammonia testing, it doesn't factor. 

 

 

to be rinsing one's sandbed out with tap water and not testing for ammonia and instead judging the cycle by collective polyp extension on the corals= updated cycling science. 

 

old cycling science by contrast would be: test for ammonia, get .75, dose bottle bac and prime and prime and bottle bac and go get a handful of old sand from an old reef tank to seed in the dead bacteria. 

 

 

see how permanently opposing old cycling science is to new cycling science? they can't coexist. one cares about fish disease and the other cares about phantom loss of ammonia control. 

 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
King Detritus

I started cycling on this 16G tank on 12/16 with Dr Tim's ammonia (suggested dose) and one and only bacteria. No other additives. Posting for thoughts on an estimated cycle date. Photos are from today. Rocks have some dark brown spots, but hard to tell in photos.

20230110_212417.jpg

20230110_212426.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
brandon429

Your cycle was done already, most likely around the start of January

 

Tank pics, excellent 

 

Those new spots, I was looking for benthic growth clues exactly like those, or algae, or any attachment to the rock or sand that didn't start with the tank

 

A rule in updated testless cycling science is any system underwater long enough to grow new benthic markers is cycled for filter bacteria. By rule, those came first and there's no time a system with new benthic spots isn't cycled/ it can carry fish now

 

Dr. Tims doesn't mention this as a marker of closed cycles. I cycle reefs differently than for- sale methods, you'd be amazed to see a hundred tank example threads of people following Dr Tims rules on testing to determine cycle closure and buying 3 or 4 bottles of bac to handle a false stall

 

Using non digital test kits makes cycles seem to take 3x as long as they take when we use digital measures

 

Your system is a false stall because you weren't told that it's done and markers other than testing from non digital kits are more reliable. Your other marker for completion even if you had no benthics (not everybody gets them as soon) was being past day ten of the wait. All bottle bac cycles are done by day ten, as hard as this may be to believe. We have massive work threads turning out 200+ reefs using these free methods that use exact start dates vs open ended wait methods where cheap test kits are nearly certain to misread and cause you to lose focus of the real issue in preparing your tank for fish health and longevity: disease preps. 

 

 

Old cycling science will not mention disease preps, disease loss is simply the number one killer of fish by far 

 

Cycling losses of fish are so rare we don't have any examples here, I'm accepting any that can be posted

The effort to look up losses of fish during cycling lends proof how rare it ever happens, issues controlling ammonia simply don't happen in display tank reefing but you can't get that info from Dr Tims, you have to get it from self directed research on web patterns. 

 

Lastly is acclimation

 

Don't stress fish by buying them at .018 salinity and dumping them into .025 salinity even though all peers do this

 

Buy fish held at reef salinity, or, bring your salinity down to match their holding water in your tank since nothing else is in it, then you can let salinity rise slowly naturally. 

 

Read fish disease preps on fallow and quarantine if you want the longest fish health possible, your cycle was done several days ago. Please post a tank pic once you stock up the tank, that's our proof of a ready cycle along with the other markers already in place. At no time is non digital ammonia testing factored in updated cycling science, those are subjective tests and we use objective ones instead. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
brandon429

You'll see the vast majority of reefers at nano-reef.com don't run disease preps and haven't for 22 years. That's because by and large, two clowns and a goby aren't huge disease risks they're pretty tough

 

Once you get into mixed speciation beyond those, disease losses increase markedly and you need to know about today's disease preps from humblefish and Jay in order to keep fancier systems alive, disease from skipping preps comprises 98% of any fish loss you can read about in a reef tank and the other searchable loss examples are hardware or procedural errors... but not cycling. 

 

In your other thread it was hinted that waiting longer for ammonia to be zero makes your tank safe for fish, not the case at all. You're twice over the wait time we use nowadays for cycling (ten days on any fed bottle bac cycle) plus you have benthic markers in place nobody bothered assessing. Your tank can carry some fish and corals if you want, several days ago. 

 

 

These details are what perpetually separate new cycling science from old cycling science. Toss in half a pinch of ground up fish food while you're getting ready to add life 

 

In three more days the already ready bacteria will be triple boosted due to carbon supplied in that feed that liquid ammonia doesn't provide 

 

Your home contaminants supplied base carbon to get you this far.  A zip of fish food and the more days would be uber cycled lol 🙂

 

Thanks for posting to get us new example material. If at any time you want to see large work threads running this method in others tanks we sure can. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
9 hours ago, brandon429 said:

In your other thread it was hinted that waiting longer for ammonia to be zero makes your tank safe for fish,

That's not true.  I simply recommended waiting until total ammonia reaches 0.25 ppm before dosing more ammonia.  Plus, 0.25 ppm of total ammonia would be a safe level for most fish.

 

You say that the tank already has an established biofilter.  That might be true.  However, we can establish whether or not it's capable of oxidizing 1 ppm down to 0.25 ppm within 24 hours (a somewhat arbitrary measure of the capacity to process ammonia).  Repeat dosing demonstrates that the biofilter can become more robust, and develop a greater capacity to oxidize ammonia (capable of supporting a larger initial bio-load without building up ammonia levels).

 

Dealing with disease is important, but it has little to do with cycling (except for ammonia control in the quarantine tank; but that's really a separate subject).  However, I agree that Humblefish is a great resource for all things related to fish diseases.

 

Like I posted in the other thread, some people will just dose nitrifying bacteria and call it a day.  You're not wrong that fish loses due to ammonia poisoning are rare.  However, you misrepresented what I said in the other thread, so I wanted to set the record straight.

 

If King Detritus wants to follow your guidance, he's free to do so.  I seriously doubt that your advice will kill any fish.  But I'll probably respond if you misrepresent what I write.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, King Detritus said:

I started cycling on this 16G tank on 12/16 with Dr Tim's ammonia (suggested dose) and one and only bacteria. No other additives. Posting for thoughts on an estimated cycle date. Photos are from today. Rocks have some dark brown spots, but hard to tell in photos.

A fish tank will grow nitrifying bacteria in 30-40 days almost without you doing anything.  Check out one of Martin Moe's books on saltwater/reef tanks.  👍

 

Using the bacteria you used, the tank was immediately ready for some livestock.  (That's the entire reason One and Only was invented.)

 

Are you going to gradually stock the tank so you grow the bio-load SLOWLY so you don't overwhelm the system?  (Good outcomes.)

 

Or are you going to stock a bunch of fish (and/or coral) all at once?  (Problematic outcomes.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
brandon429

Team

 

 

So far, I'm being bumped out pages of extra read as disagreement takes from other people not based on a bad outcome I caused. 

 

I have not posted a single time in any recent thread you both wrote on a topic to work other people's reefs. We might wind up sharing post space in other threads, but I'm staying out of threads you author by courtesy

 

I want the outcomes of new cycling science evaluated by what happens when people follow it, this is so simple. It allows me to be accountable for claims solely on outcome not competing theories. 

 

If possible, resist critique here and make a new thread to tweak anything I'm doing here/ that's good science. I'll read your threads but won't post in them via courtesy

 

 M just hinted to the op his bacteria can be overwhelmed

 

That's slipping in old cycling science in a new cycling science thread, it's bacterial doubt, and the counter rebuttal coming adds more pages of read that aren't other people's tank outcomes. 

 

 I understand if the impulse to resist change in cycling is so strong that nobody deserves the right to inspect new ways, it's just I will never do that to either of you.

 

 

Anything you wanted to inspect as a reef pattern I would simply read without redirection 

 

How about this option if my fourth request for non redirection can't be allowed: wait until a bad outcome happens, then pounce 

 

But if no bad outcome ever happens, no pounce/ seems fair request

  • Like 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, brandon429 said:

Please let me have my work thread free of debate and redirection into other people's methods

I'll try.  But then just state your case without misrepresenting my posts.  You directly referenced a thread in which I responded to.

 

2 hours ago, brandon429 said:

I have not posted a single time in any thread you both wrote on a topic to work other people's reefs.

As you pointed out, you posted in a thread where I was helping King Detritus.  But that's not a problem, as that's how forums work (where everybody is free to post their opinions on any topic).

 

I appreciate the courtesy that you've shown; but I've even offered to discuss this topic with you in one of my threads if you prefer.  That said, you have a contrasting point of view that appeals to some.  So I'm basically fine with letting you work with people in this thread without interruption.

 

2 hours ago, brandon429 said:

... just hinted to the op his bacteria can be overwhelmed

It's pretty rare in a mature tank (a little easier in a tank recently started with dry rock).  The process of building up the biofilter with ammonia (fishless cycling) demonstrates that we can overwhelm a biofilter started with bottled nitrifying bacteria.  But people can even cycle a new tank containing dry rock without using either bottled bacteria or ammonia; there are actually many ways that we can cycle a tank.

 

2 hours ago, brandon429 said:

may I please have freedom to work my science without a battle in just one location in the nano reef universe? 

Like I said, I'll certainly try.  In this post, I'm just responding because you were directing your comments at me.

Link to comment
brandon429

@King Detritus

 

If that was my tank I'd be stocking corals before fish. Not for bacteria concern but for use of the ready system/ begin enjoying it/ and to practice manually controlling uglies we get in dry rock systems vs letting invasions take over which is the common mode.

 

 

You can add fish when ready but they sure do boost up uglies work by adding waste plus extra feed command into the tank. Either way you choose you're into reefing now and past cycling, be studying invasion help threads to determine what you can do oppositely from those keepers

 

Find ten nano reef help threads for various invasions, look at what they do similar in each case that furthers the problem, anticipate your upcoming challenge 

 

You will see them being advised to test for and respond with nitrate and phosphate dosing, but not by digital testing of course. Just like cycling, impacts from non digital test drift isn't factored nor relayed to them and the result on file for the masses is a succession of gha, cyano, dinos over and over

 

Nano reefs exist that have never been invaded since day one of initiation, you will have to dig for those since the invasion- promoting means of the masses comprise search example bulk. 

 

They key between the two methods is invaded reef tanks allowed it, reacting indirectly to the invasion well after it began, and nano reefs that were never invaded simply didn't allow it- they physically did not allow their investments to get wrecked,  from day one.  There are updated ways to never lose your tank to invasion just like there are updated ways of cycling. 

 

If you want the best method of controlling invasions, don't accept methods relayed that don't come with fix examples using other people's reefs. If you are getting told how to fix an invasion and the coach doesn't include a link of them already fixing that as an outbound job in someone else's reef vs their own, you're getting coached on ways the masses use that don't work very well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
King Detritus

Thanks for the input, everybody. I'm a little surprised. I posted on here because I thought somebody would say next week and then I thought it could be cool to see if it with my testing it would be ready by then. Let me say I'm in no rush on getting fish in there. I would like a nice clown and I'm certainly willing to wait - even if just to bolster the bacteria colony. The back of the filter is packed will Marine Pure cubes (about a week in the system). Also, forgot to mention that it started with live sand, but obviously dry rock. I would like to start stocking by eventually adding copepods and a few corals (mostly softies with some LPS). So if I get the itch for testing it out, that would be what I'd do - not a fish first. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment

Not sure what exactly this is for, but I’ll toss in mine journey. Been reefing a year and this is my third tank. 1st tank, fluval 3g, everything lived, but turned into a soupy mess. 2nd tank still going, Fluval 12g, a softie tank everything grows well, but has always been a bit of an algae/cyano headache, and lps didn’t seem to do well at all (though probably due to high nutrients, and heavy flow) It was started with live sand, live rock. Third tank is completely different, inspired by the reef jar approach.

 

Bare bottom

Lifegaard 4.14 (2.5 gallon display)

Filter, just the foam in the first chamber

pump, upgraded dc

light fluval nano sea

feed 1x week, water change 50% same day

no live rock, just fake rock frag rack

 

Been running 3 months, corals in on day 1, currently 7, 3 Zoa, 4 lps

 

Corals growing slowly, however they seem healthier than in the 12g (in fact starting buying budget tlc corals). Very little algae issues. No fish, 2 snails.

 

Still trying to figure out what I want the tank to be.

 

If this wasn’t what you were looking for in the thread my apologies.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...