Sudden Tank Crash

[Morpheus77]

I agree with both you and seabass, not needed, the paly and gsp have been not opening 100%, and I'm convinced if I brought down the nitrates to more of an acceptable level, this could potentially fix the issue. Looking to get 3-5 range, but can't seem to get there. Even at a 90% WC, they still registering high. The feeding was gonna be an experiment if I could get nitrates down enough, to sorta see how they would react, but there again, I am familiar with the potential algae blooms that could come with it, especially in a small tank. So that was the plan, however gonna put it on hold for now. Could be a magnesium issue, could be an iodine issue, Alk issue, etc. Will be buying all those test kits this week, currently researching them. My Son said the corals are open now, not sure if they are back to open in their usual less than perfect state, or just open more than yesterday. He left before he could send a pic. Get the tank stable and more water chemistry to see if I can possibly find a particular nutrient missing keeping them in their less than perfect state. A challenge they said it would be, the reason I took on this project, but I'm afraid all the neglect has caught up with me, but I will prevail. I seen a 2 gallon reef tank in Dallas about 15 years ago, and it was pristine, beautiful softie reef tank, had corals bustling everywhere, and I remember thinking I will do that one day, and the guy told me good luck! Lol, challenge excepted. 

[seabass]

15 minutes ago, Morpheus77 said:

I'm convinced if I brought down the nitrates to more of an acceptable level, this could potentially fix the issue.

I seriously doubt that high nitrate is to blame.  I actually suspect the opposite might be true.  Although 3 to 5 ppm should be sufficient.  If you can't get that low, don't worry about it; there is no need to chase that particular range.  Really, anything under 20 ppm should be fine.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Morpheus77 said:

Could be a magnesium issue, could be an iodine issue, Alk issue, etc.

Without stony corals, there shouldn't be enough consumption of elements to be causing you problems.

[Morpheus77]

6 minutes ago, seabass said:

I seriously doubt that high nitrate is to blame.  I actually suspect the opposite might be true.  Although 3 to 5 ppm should be sufficient.  If you can't get that low, don't worry about it; there is no need to chase that particular range.  Really, anything under 20 ppm should be fine.

 

 

Without stony corals, there shouldn't be enough consumption of elements to be causing you problems.

Interesting, both are new corals for me, never had either in my previous endeavors, however I did have lots of zoas, and they have similar characteristics in terms of the paly's. I remember they were their happiest when the nitrates were in that range, maybe I am stressing to much on that 20 mark, Idk, but I am certainly gonna aim for that mark.

 

I agree with you on the second half as well, hence the reason for switching water. Supposedly the nutri-water has more elements in it, but I don't want to start that debate, it's just an experiment to see if indeed it is. I remember the RO/DI water and mixing my own was a great option back when I had a LFS, but unfortunately not an option anymore. Driving to Houston with these gas prices wouldn't be beneficial to me. I may go with another brand of premixed before it's all over with. As is the case with most folks, trying to see what works best. But alk that is on hold till everything stabilizes. Just ready to get home and check in things! 430 killing me!

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 1:23 PM, seabass said:

I'll try to read though the rest and sum it up for people following along.

I question your premise that our tanks contain ten times the needed nitrifying bacteria, making it impossible to see small increases in ammonia because the bacteria will immediate oxidize it.  Although I do agree that removing some of the surface area (or biofilter) shouldn't cause a spike.  We usually recommend limiting the amount of surface area removed at one time, at least until the bacteria can adjust to its new normal.  I figure that most of these recommendations are probably overly conservative, so as not to risk the health of the poster's livestock.  But if bacteria can really adjust so quickly to elevated ammonia, shouldn't it take less time to establish a cycle using live rock (or even using fishless cycling with dry rock)?

 

"thats what a real spike looks like, the tank tells you, not the kit."

The tank can certainly tell you, but so can a test kit.  I feel that a test kit can sometimes warn you about a problem before your tank can.

 

"in false tank issue threads, only the test kit gives concern and they spend pages grasping at possible causatives"

Hey hey, we agree.   A lot of the examples that you cite involve low levels (but what I say are real amounts) of ammonia.  However, the level is not enough to cause noticeable consequences.  I take it that you would dismiss all of these as false readings (based on visual evidence); however, I would argue that the non-negative results are real, and that understanding why they occurred can be productive.

 

"The only test kits we own that can show the correct rebound rates are calibrated working and tuned seneye machines."

That's some statement.  Only one kit can be trusted, but it can't be confirmed with other kits (because they are all wrong).  Without knowing much about it, I immediately question the one versus the many.

 

"Show me the post where that occurred, as pics not as posted stated param readings."

Why do you disregard test results just because there are no signs of distress.  Is it that because you believe that slightly elevated levels should cause distress, or that you believe that slightly elevated levels are simply not possible?

 

"api needs to be benchmarked with other kits for accuracy, we can see in the link example if other kits were used and we can check the context of the .25"

I'll give you that API's test can sometimes show non-negative results before other kits.  I don't necessarily consider this a negative for using it (especially when you realize that low non-negative results are nothing to worry about).  I have often posted that I'd like to see a lower resolution color chart that better reflects these low levels.

 

BTW, I've posted comparison pics of API versus Seachem MultiTest discs before.  They use different technologies, but didn't yield dramatically different results.

 

 

"You had live rock, which is skip cycle. You were shown this thread below on how skip cycles work, but skipped reading it due to the .25 which is understandable-false ammonia reads cause concern."

By skip cycle, I assume that you mean no ammonia spike was detected (or expected to be detected).  However, I would argue that even the transportation of live rock can cause some die-off.  Low levels of ammonia are certainly possible in some of these cases.  And after a spike, it is not uncommon for these low (but  relatively safe) levels to linger for awhile.  This isn't a stalled cycle, or false readings, it's just the curve of the cycle (and something that API's kit happens to be able to pickup).

 

...

 

I'm sorry, but I'm just not finding convincing evidence in these threads which makes me think that people are seeing false positives (besides the expired kit that had been opened six years prior to using it, and potentially people dosing products like Prime).  I probably should do a trial to demonstrate just how Prime affects the color of API's results.  Note: it has been recently concluded, that Prime doesn't neutralize free ammonia as advertised.

 

If anything, I'm even more skeptical about the nearly $200 Seneye monitor.  I'm not sure if it's a design limitation, user error calibrating it, or something else which causes it to disagree with traditional test kits.  However, it's a good thing for them (like you've previously stated) that ammonia isn't usually the main cause of new livestock death (it's more likely parasites and diseases).

[seabass]

22 minutes ago, Morpheus77 said:

I remember the RO/DI water and mixing my own was a great option back when I had a LFS, but unfortunately not an option anymore.

You should be able to buy distilled water at Walmart or any grocery store.  You could always top off, and make your own saltwater with that.

[Morpheus77]

1 minute ago, seabass said:

You should be able to buy distilled water at Walmart or any grocery store.  You could always top off, and make your own saltwater with that.

I have considered this as well, and I might go this route, especially when the 20 Long gets going.

[brandon429]

Seabass wouldn’t you think we’d see actual tank toxicity just once, out of these thousands of posts? Analyze any ammonia alert thread going back twenty years from any forum, aren’t they all astonishingly lacking symptoms? Aren’t they all nh4 readings where the reader expected zero but didn’t get zero?

 

Try and link us a for sure, ammonia confirmed noncontrol event where symptoms spread across the tank. If you can’t find any, then I’m thinking we are dealing with a bunch of panic posts. But if you can find five, I’m sold we could be dealing in cycled reefs that all of a sudden become undone.

 

 

I feel the best way to address fair challenges above is for us to get to see where this ammonia control link actually broke down confirmed. Let’s see a few posts that show a convincing case. * I’m able to link instances of zero toxicity shown on file, no death, so I honestly feel it’s fair to ask for 1-5 options of cycle fails where something beyond a test kit nh4 is the proof.

 

 

*as readers go digging for literally any early loss post, so we can pin it on ammonia 🙂 also realize some are disease and some are acclimation fails. Loss posts are so hard to find I’m even curious to see those questionable ones

 

 

One month ago here I hopped in a day 1 fish loss post, where the crew for sure said it was ammonia, i chatted him and found the tanker floating opened bags of fish for hours to acclimate then dumping them in (ammonia in the bag, not the tank, wasn’t disclosed, had to be discerned by chat detailing) 

 

 

So I sent him back to pet store changing *nothing* in his suspect tank. He took a baggie of water from his tank up to the fish store. They bagged his two new clowns, using half his water half theirs. Clowns brought home and added right in, safe. Not all initial fish kills are ammonia but let’s see the convincing cases, just a couple will do. Inability to find any among these thousands of bottle baf cycles will be also telling.

[empresto]

I'm just going to make a friendly observation: in almost every post I see from you, @brandon429, you are suggesting we totally ignore the results of some test kit or another in our diagnosis of issues as you claim they are 'always wrong'.  I would point others to your posts about rip cleans where you suggest ignoring nitrate and phosphate for coral health and algal issues since we 'can't trust the tests anyway'.

 

@seabass is being incredibly patient in looking at your 'data' and quite kind in @seabass's responses, as per usual.

 

I agree with you that there is a lot of panic for newer reef keepers, and a low ammonia reading can cause some level of unnecessary panic and knee jerking that could cause trouble (nothing good happens fast in this hobby).  But, why not just conduct a good water change and call it a day, test again the next day and see what happens, rather than disparaging the entire test kit production industry.  A good water change is seldom a bad idea, and in my experience test kits are not so far outside their margin of error that their results would kill something (provided they are not expired or otherwise contaminated <- this is the aquarists own responsibility).  In fact, every test kit I've tested with a prepared reference solution has been within its stated margin of error (and no, I don't think my 50g calibrated precision scale for creating those solutions is to blame).

 

However, your suggestion that the Seneye is the only test that actually works because it registers what you expect to find is simply confirmation bias.  Occam's razor would suggest that when all but one test kit shows something, the outlier is the one to question.

[brandon429]

Remember, I’m asking to see only 1-5 links, of a failed cycle, to reinforce that observation 

 

 

I feel concerned that no matter how many pages the thread gets, nobody will attempt to list any. None, we will again operate for pages and pages on a fear of incompletion risk, having never seen one instance of an incompletion.
 

again the only links found, added, will be of relevant completions. Accurate bioload carry dates.

 

Y’all don’t let me down, find one and a decent, convincing one at that. Am hoping you’ll see while googling ‘failed reef tank cycle’ all the examples you find, match the current thread in about five consistent ways. You gotta admit, asking a group of detractors to list when the bad outcome happens, that they see this routinely enough to relay to us as a risk from a clean link, is a fair and easy request. All I see is passed cycles year after year, I’m honestly relaying pattern outcomes as I see them. You guys must think I exist only to mislead you in cycling 🙂 lol I’m ur friend. I like how we disagree civilly at nano-reef.com though, that’s always good for hobby evolution.

 

 

I think what we all do is hear whispers of failed cycles, from peers online, and relay that down the line to the next peer

 

 

and as soon as someone says: hey, I’ve noticed for twenty years nothing bad is happening and all these new digital readings don’t agree with anything ever said about cycling in forums- that causes a ripple in the comfort zone. We have been telling each other for twenty years that ammonia control varies far far above what it actually varies in display tank reefing. The digital data shows it

symptomatology shows it.

 

if you don’t like seneye, get hack nh3 meter data. Get any digital nh3 data you like 

 

 

get the new nh3 meter from hanna * it’s only $59 with a +- error rate .05 at hundredths ppm nh3. This is good for fifty nine bucks, all these panic posts center around 1+ ppm fear posts, that .0x meter will be enough to begin ruling out those high level ammonia noncontrol tanks.
 

We can begin benchmarking our own reefs with the cheap digital gear and our Red Sea, api meters and log the comparisons. When enough digital meters are out there one day, we will truly know if reef tank cycles run at .25-2.0 ppm as always stated. I bet now on file they run at thousandths ppm nh3 constant due to the ratios of surface area we all copy from each other and due to the ability of bottle bacteria to oxidize ammonia while in suspension, right out of the bottle.

 

Since I’m relaying digital data in some of my posts, more than one seneye user, it’s fair to ask detractors to take time to source either directly or indirectly some digital data.

 

if seneye is bad, seek out the hundreds of mindstream owners there were hundreds before the meters went offline. They report nh3 as ppb

 

I had been watching those trends too, to discern the tight range of control.

 

 

 

It’s too easy to just write it off without investing the time to inspect your own patterns. You can send messages to owners of digital meters and have them run tests for you, to save the money invested in the machine. I’m currently doing this across forums in pm. I don’t see how a challenge to the patterns relayed is forged without years inspection into the matter, and there will be links of supporting outcome available for that kind of effort. You’ll have the clear fail examples memorized, they’re the rare events that stand out.

 

 

 

[Morpheus77]

Enjoying the back and forth, alot of good and interesting points, the research is coming to me! +1 I like to see people's opinions, and knowledge, especially on new things. 

 

On a side note, checked parameters when I got home, Nitrates at 80, Nitrite and Ammonia was 1, Calcium 480, and phosphate. 03, PH 8.2. Did a 90% WC, took out the purigen, (just to see) put in a new foam filter, changed out floss. So floss, foam, and matrix in HOB. If tomorrow it continues on the up and up, then I will take out HOB completely, see how that does. If that doesn't work, a complete reset like seabass recommended in another post of mine. Seabass, will changing the LS hurt anything? Like pull it out completely and go with a new batch? I have never had to do this before, but I'm just wondering if the die off from the cyno a few months back is causing the spike issues, curious as to your thoughts on this? I mean at this point, surely can't hurt. TIA

[seabass]

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

Seabass wouldn’t you think we’d see actual tank toxicity just once, out of these thousands of posts?

You mean deaths (or even visible signs of distress)?  Not necessarily.  Exposure to mild levels might not cause observable distress (especially in the hardy livestock which is sold to hobbyists).  Even the ocean contains various low levels of ammonia.

 

But as the level increases, we might expect to see some negative results.  I'd actually like to know what that level might be; and that's why I get a little more concerned when I start seeing levels getting unusually high for a cycled tank.  For these exceptional cases, I'd hope that we could at least identify the problem, and if warranted, recommend some type of corrective action (before we see deaths or even obvious signs of distress).

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

Aren’t they all nh4 readings where the reader expected zero but didn’t get zero?

Yeah, they expected zero, partly because we have typically told people to expect undetectable results.  When they get a non-negative, they tend to ask why and what to do.  Personally, I feel that low levels aren't all that uncommon (hence the number of posts you reference).  But I have to admit, that my discussions with you have helped shape my interpretation of what is going on and how critical (or not) the issue might actually be.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

Try and link us a for sure, ammonia confirmed noncontrol event where symptoms spread across the tank. If you can’t find any, then I’m thinking we are dealing with a bunch of panic posts.

When you say non-control, it sounds like you are talking about any ammonia level above 0.00.  However, we don't usually see symptoms because levels are not typically high enough for animals to show signs of distress.  So I agree, most of these posts don't illustrate levels which pose an immediate danger to the inhabitants; and therefore, I agree that most of these are "panic posts" where danger is more perceived than real.  However, I do believe that the results are actually showing slightly elevated levels of total ammonia.  It's good information to have (if you don't panic).

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

if you can find five, I’m sold we could be dealing in cycled reefs that all of a sudden become undone.

That doesn't occur on its own.  Something would have to happen to kill off the biofilter (like dosing antibiotics), or to remove a large portion of the biofilter (like removing all the rocks), or a large increase in ammonia input (like a relatively large death or failed tank move).  But I've witnessed mature tanks show slight non-negative API results without any obvious reason.  However, these low levels don't indicate an undone biofilter and are generally safe for livestock.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

I feel the best way to address fair challenges above is for us to get to see where this ammonia control link actually broke down confirmed. Let’s see a few posts that show a convincing case. * I’m able to link instances of zero toxicity shown on file, no death, so I honestly feel it’s fair to ask for 1-5 options of cycle fails where something beyond a test kit nh4 is the proof.

I'm not sure what you are asking for.  The test results are the proof of detectable total ammonia levels (without broken nitrogen cycles).  Zero deaths just indicates that level of NH3 wasn't high enough to cause death.  You won't find NH3 deaths and low non-negative total ammonia results at the same time.  But that isn't proof that there is actually no total ammonia present.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

One month ago here I hopped in a day 1 fish loss post, where the crew for sure said it was ammonia, i chatted him and found the tanker floating opened bags of fish for hours to acclimate then dumping them in (ammonia in the bag, not the tank, wasn’t disclosed, had to be discerned by chat detailing) 

Yes, in addition to the accumulating ammonia in the bag, the pH tends to fall during shipping (so more NH4 and less NH3).  But when the bag was opened (and exposed to fresh air), the pH likely increased (increasing the level of toxic NH3).  That and the general stress of shipping could potentially explain the loss.  So good catch!  I also give you props for bringing parasites and diseases into the discussion.

 

 

On 6/14/2022 at 4:41 PM, brandon429 said:

Not all initial fish kills are ammonia but let’s see the convincing cases, just a couple will do.

I'd go so far to say that very few kills are from ammonia (and probably none showing levels of 0.25 ppm or less).  Possible issues might come from adding uncured live rock to a tank with livestock (or adding fish before the tank's live rock is fully cured),  possibly quarantining fish in a tank without a biofilter, or a failed tank move.  I'll reiterate, I think we should aim to keep NH3 as low as possible; and I feel that testing with kits like API can sometimes help us accomplish this.

[Tired]

It's probably worth noting that just about all of the mobile creatures we keep in reef tanks are prey animals. Prey animals do their best to hide any distress they're in, so as to hopefully not attract the attention of a predator. They have to be in serious distress to show any signs of it. It's like cats; cats have to be in a lot of pain to show signs of being in pain, meaning that a cat not showing signs of pain at being injured doesn't mean it isn't in pain. A fish can be in distress without showing that distress. We can't ask what they're feeling, and they'd probably lie anyway. 

[seabass]

13 hours ago, Morpheus77 said:

Ammonia was 1

Definitely, unusually high.  Glad you went with a large water change.

 

13 hours ago, Morpheus77 said:

will changing the LS hurt anything?

If you rinse out your existing sand thoroughly, you shouldn't have any problems; it's perfectly good sand.  But yes, you can switch it out for new if you prefer.  I'd still rinse it out good so that you don't end up clouding up the water.

 

13 hours ago, Morpheus77 said:

I'm just wondering if the die off from the cyno a few months back is causing the spike issues

You'd think that the tank should have broken that down by now.  TBH, I'm not really sure where the ammonia is coming from.  You might see something like this if you dosed a bunch of Flatworm eXit which killed a bunch of worms.  Is there anything else that we might be missing?

[Morpheus77]

2 minutes ago, seabass said:

Definitely, unusually high.  Glad you went with a large water change.

 

If you rinse out your existing sand thoroughly, you shouldn't have any problems; it's perfectly good sand.  But yes, you can switch it out for new if you prefer.  I'd still rinse it out good so that you don't end up clouding up the water.

 

Shouldn't be.  The tank should have broken that down by now.  TBH, I'm not sure where the ammonia is coming from.  You might see something like this if you dosed a bunch of Flatworm eXit which killed a bunch of worms.  Is there anything else that we might be missing?

I can't think of anything else. CUC is accounted for. Bristleworms worms maybe?? I mean I used to have so many, but only noticing like a few now. Could a mass death of Bristleworms worms cause this? I never really thought about that till the other day, but Idk. I remember having around 20 or more when I got the Rocks from the store. So I am wondering if they could be decaying in sand bed, but Idk, reason why I'm considering new LS. Surely the matrix wouldn't cause anything out of the ordinary huh? I did rinse it in new SW before going in. I am just baffled, I still think there is something decaying in the sand, has to be. Or decaying in the rocks. I haven't dosed anything in the tank, I did do a small dose of Vibrant like a long time ago, but haven't since, it's long out of the tank now. After reading your post about your experiment, not sure I want to anymore.

[Morpheus77]

Just checked parameters, WC was two hrs ago. Nitrates less than 5, but greater than 0, but not much, probably 2-3 range, Nitrite 0, Ammonia the usual. 25. See if it stays the same overnight and tomorrow. Salinity 1.025.5, Temp 80. 

[seabass]

Yeah, I suppose that organic waste in the sand bed (like from dead bristle worms, or even a past die off) might be the cause.  Although this usually doesn't present itself in terms of ammonia unless the sand gets disturbed.  That's one of the reasons I tend to tread lightly when suggesting substrate maintenance on a previously undisturbed (or deep) sand bed.

 

Brandon is right, the biofilter doesn't usually just stop working without reason.  Based solely on what we know, a disruption of the substrate might be the most plausible cause.  Although there are often other contributing factors.

 

If this is the case, I support your plan to wash or replace your existing sand bed.  Sounds like you saw my three bucket plan to clean out a 2.5 gallon pico (which is probably very similar to Brandon's rip clean method).  But if you have any questions or just want to run your plan by someone, I'd be happy to share some ideas with you.

[Morpheus77]

Ugh, 24 hrs later, the parameters are back up. Ammonia-1, Nitrates-40 again. This morning they were almost nonexistent. So took the HOB filter completely out, did another WC. Gonna keep filter out, see what that does tomorrow. If that doesn't work, then cleaning and/or changing sand out, haven't decided yet. Never had sudden changes till filter went in, as odd as that sounds, I can't see how that could affect anything, but got to rule that out at least. My bet is the sand, I mean at this point, it's that or something decaying in rock. So aggravating, but gonna figure it out one way or another.

[Morpheus77]

To be more specific, things took a turn after the matrix was added. Ran fine for about 9 days running floss, foam, and purigen, added the matrix in place of the foam, and things took a turn. So we'll see. 

[brandon429]

It still is running fine though, and the concern is unjustified. Tiny common peaks and troughs in ammonia that happen in all reefs are being interpreted here as a crash in a full normal running reef tank

 

You're basing your permission to enjoy a hobby on a parameter reading you choose to interpret as bad, while I'm directly telling you nothing is wrong since first post 🙂

 

 

 

Someone needs to take a resolved, clear stance on your cycle vs waffling. 

 

Once enough pics of a normal running pico are on file, nobody will believe it ever was crashing but it'll take pages of pics. 

 

[brandon429]

Please retitle the thread: symptomless tank crash

 

 

The only way your issue would be valid is if in your opening full tank picture prior, only a pebble- sized live rock was sitting in the middle of a bare bottom glass tank. But you posted rocks filling half, sand surface area, and coral stocking post- cycle reefing underway. The time its taking for cycle umpires here to become resolved is exceeding, we're seeing someone get coached to doubt and hesitate live time. 

 

 

Cease testing for ammonia and nitrite for the life of this reef, become resolved. Updated cycling science says your cycle was never in question, old cycling science has you in pure fear mode, never knowing if your tank will live or die day to day. Old cycling science never requests a tank picture in cycle troubleshooting, only what api says matters. Bacteria are the focus scare in old cycling science, new cycling science knows its about the surface area, and pics are required to assess surface area status.

 

Updated cycling science has an explanation for your consistent happy tank pics, old cycling science doesn't. It'll have you digging through that reef searching for a .25 causative till the end of time 🙂

[brandon429]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/official-sand-rinse-and-tank-transfer-thread.230281/page-48

 

Just because someone doesn't validate work links as claim proof doesn't make that opinion correct. Work threads involve other peoples reefs that can die when bad cycling science is used, there's a lot on the line. Someone go through that thread and price estimate every job; is it not about a million bucks in reefs? They're doing far beyond what this little no bioload pico did. 

 

I'm of the opinion the only cycling advice worth inspecting for surface area reduction studies comes from work threads

 

Here above,  people's systems will die if live rocks in a display aren't plenty of surface area. Notice every job: happy tank happy reefer happy TANK PICS 

 

As we flip through the pages, how much api did any of us discuss

 

 

We ceased testing ammonia and nitrite for the life of that thread, you're seeing resolve in every job. I'm advising you to do what we do in huge $$ actual bioload at risk tank surface area control jobs, put down the test kits. Focus on big picture

 

 

[seabass]

On 6/16/2022 at 6:25 AM, brandon429 said:

It still is running fine though, and the concern is unjustified. Tiny common peaks and troughs in ammonia that happen in all reefs are being interpreted here as a crash in a full normal running reef tank

There is an issue going on here.  The fact that it's not causing a cascade of death doesn't mean Morpheus should dismiss it.

And I thought that there was 10 times the bacteria present so that ammonia wouldn't last more than a few minutes. 😕

 

 

On 6/16/2022 at 6:25 AM, brandon429 said:

Someone needs to take a resolved, clear stance on your cycle vs waffling. 

I assume you equate the word cycle with an ammonia spike, since the nitrogen cycle was established a long time ago.  I believe that Morpheus has figured it out.  We've been messaging; and the sand which was added might have contained dead organic matter (resulting in the increase in ammonia).  This is exactly the type of information that traditional ammonia testing can reveal.  Now that we appear to have diagnosed the problem, Morpheus has a plan to deal with it.

 

 

On 6/16/2022 at 7:17 AM, brandon429 said:

Cease testing for ammonia and nitrite for the life of this reef

I suppose that's one way to go.  But I think Morpheus has taken a smart approach.  The issue appear to be discovered and it's now in the process of being resolved.