A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac

[brandon429]

again, I don't mind some back and forth but MN this is a links based thread

90% of my kickups here are jobs I completed that fit the bill. work some links that involve other people's reef tanks into your posts somehow, that's what I'm doing. I'm actively involved in any link placed here.

I don't want this a word thread

rather a links and outcome thread. all my links and all my outcomes are in line with happy reefers, that's what we're collecting.

if one fails, am here for the account. if we keep this jobs and outcome based there's lesser room for volumes of arguments about theory. that's every other type of cycling thread. some of them have to just be about the jobs, that's this one.

find a problematic skip cycle out there and link it back/ let's hash out a live time job. the next cycle challenge thread you see posted, link it here we can make a quick prediction run.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Lasse and I are never going to agree on cycling details. All my threads will always be testless cycles, he believes in testing and believes in cycle stalls, which I don’t. It’s good for science to have these competing approaches.

But there is no new science being established. What you "believe" is at odds with the science and when confronted with those facts and examples you (with categorical certainty) refuse to acknowledge them. So you can believe whatever you like, but posting it opens it to challenge.

Right but their numbers won't reach zero. And in cycling we can't determine if we have enough bacteria

I think you are conflating debate here with the notion that it is a good idea to verify that the process is working with that of quantifying the capacity of the process. None of us are attempting to quantify the capacity of the process.

To that end, the "cycle" never ends even if fully wiped out, as it will restart itself (of course unless extreme such as acidity, temperature, oxygen, etc are passed). it may exist in various stages of development or capacity,

Brandon's overarching opinion is that testing never needs to be done for ammonia or nitrate and further that no harmful amount can ever exist for more than 15 minutes in an aquarium that has "started to cycle" for a few days or one with any "live rock" regardless if it is new, moved or what loading is put on the system.

Note: Edited first statement to change "with quantifying" to "with that of quantifying" for clarity.

 

[BeanAnimal]

anyone with a calibrated seneye: please yesterday audit with your machine anything I've typed about reef cycling, quickly report back findings. I'm hungry to be seneye audited.

Calibrated how, Brandon? With you having the user adjust their trim setting to ensure it shows no ammonia, so as to be able to say you are right? The seneye "calibration" and "results" are one of the underpinnings of your arguments. But...

You were flat out told by an actual (and well respected) scientist that you were wrong and you refused to accept it.

 

[MnFish1]

if you found an example of a skip cycle attempt that failed in someone else's reef tank post, and linked that here, it would be so on-point.

I've set up probably 20 tanks in my life. Each time I was upgrading - I did what is being called a 'skip cycle'. So I guess you can add 20 more success aquariums to your list. Oh - I guess I can report this for over 2 decades + I've been told you can do a 'skip cycle' with no problems. So - my comment is that as far as I experienced - this procedure has been widely used and recommended by LFS and individual reefers for a very very long time. So I think your point is proven. By the way - I'm talking mainly about LFS and their employees that helped with the moving, etc.

 

[MnFish1]

again, I don't mind some back and forth but MN this is a links based thread

90% of my kickups here are jobs I completed that fit the bill. work some links that involve other people's reef tanks into your posts somehow, that's what I'm doing. I'm actively involved in any link placed here.

I don't want this a word thread

rather a links and outcome thread. all my links and all my outcomes are in line with happy reefers, that's what we're collecting.

if one fails, am here for the account. if we keep this jobs and outcome based there's lesser room for volumes of arguments about theory. that's every other type of cycling thread. some of them have to just be about the jobs, that's this one.

find a problematic skip cycle out there and link it back/ let's hash out a live time job. the next cycle challenge thread you see posted, link it here we can make a quick prediction run.

I have a couple thought quickly. 1. I have a problem relying on a Seneye for any information concerning this topic. 2. I would prefer an NH3 estimate from a calculated NH4 measurement.

 

[CoastalTownLayabout]

The hobby, all formal written works on cycling, and any writing you can find on scholar does not account for skip cycling, so consider this the first account. If we are using bad science, expect gray water cloudy smelly dead reefs, lost money, unhappiness

I've set up probably 20 tanks in my life. Each time I was upgrading - I did what is being called a 'skip cycle'. So I guess you can add 20 more success aquariums to your list. Oh - I guess I can report this for over 2 decades + I've been told you can do a 'skip cycle' with no problems. So - my comment is that as far as I experienced - this procedure has been widely used and recommended by LFS and individual reefers for a very very long time. So I think your point is proven. By the way - I'm talking mainly about LFS and their employees that helped with the moving, etc.

It has been documented and the practice has been used by some reefers for at least 30 years. See below excerpt from Reef Notes Vol 1. Original appears in Julian’s column from FAMA Oct 1989 if you have a surviving copy.

 

[brandon429]

that is a great job. It's older than 80% of the posters on this site, never to be seen by them, obscured as learning information in todays world (or we wouldn't be introducing the concept of skip cycling at 1-3x per day) but as a reference I value the heck out of that pic. I used to ditch class, go to hastings, get that magazine and read the troubleshooting column and try and figure out how this man named Jeff could make a freakin comeback for 100% of challenges written to him. that was ten years after this edition

it was amazing fun times. If that magazine there was sitting in my reef store they could sell it to me for a decent markup, that has value.

 

[brandon429]

that is the first I've ever seen it mentioned of the link between algae/visual details and the associated bacteria, and the oldest dated material we get for references here in quite some time

for him to write that in 89 is just really amazing to see. why/how did we drift away from that input in the hobby into this fear-based, might-not-cycle flinching test response mode. somehow, that line of thought has taken over the common skip cycles he was for sure covering there so long ago. best reference post in a long time

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

The way to determine whether the amount necessary (nitrifiers) is whether the non-utilized ammonia is rising in the tank after you've added fish. And the only way to tell that is testing, right (or distressed fish, etc). IMHO - testing will give a 'quicker' answer - giving the reefer time to do water changes etc. BTW - I'm assuming - though I don't know - I assume you're using smaller tanks - and I'm using much larger tanks, so this may be changing our opinions slightly. In general I agree with many of your comments!

But here is the problem with that. You add live rock and sand. The bacteria is already established. No testing would be needed as bacteria is already there.

There seems to be a mixup between methods that require testing vs methods that don't. This thread is focusing on those that don't. If I just add ammonia to a tank, or certain bottle bacteria, then yes testing would be required as no bacteria has established. I could go in further why I am not a fan as I have before lol but I think it would muddy it. There are ways to establish bacteria without testing.

Yes, I do have a pico. Same principle applies to all sizes, cost and requirements sometimes make things not feasible.

If using all live rock, no matter the size tank, will not see a cycle unless you overload. But this can be done at any point in a tanks life. Over time, that overload will be sustained or you could add more love rock to counter act.

I technical setup a new tank every week. I remove all corals and organisms. I clean, drain all the water, and readd everything back with fresh saltwater. I use same salt mix from LFS and heat within 2 degrees. This would be the same as getting live rock and setting up a new tank. There is no need to test everything is reset next water change.

This I think is where a lot of confusion is and why thread is derailed even by me. We tend to get hung up on what if something happens to spike because we are talking about dosing. We end up going off trail into what about this scenario or that scenario. I think what Brandon is pushing for is to move away from bottles and dosing for bacteria and use already established live rock, sand etc. then no testing is needed as bacteria colony is already happy and healthy just like what I do weekly.

I agree with a lot of views as well. But it's the delivery method that determines and the amount of ammonia usually used is greater than what people would have in there aquarium at any given time. As to why we don't have to wait hours or see nitrites.

This is why I'm not a fan of term cycling. As there really is no end and populations change based on available food source.

I think testing when it comes to established live rock throws people off as they expect to see results and keep adding ammonia and other stuff trying to force numbers that they won't get unless over done. Then they have this super high nitrates and wonder what is going on or asking if they are cycled and already setting up for failure. No love bacteria, should be testing to verify process. Some live bacteria but a lot of dry rock etc, add slowly and no need to test. All live, go to town reasonably and no testing. Bottle bacteria, depending on which some may need testing others don't. Fritz is the only one I trust and have used without testing. Throw and go is what I did lol. But not in this setup.

 

[Garf]

But here is the problem with that. You add live rock and sand. The bacteria is already established. No testing would be needed as bacteria is already there.

There seems to be a mixup between methods that require testing vs methods that don't. This thread is focusing on those that don't. If I just add ammonia to a tank, or certain bottle bacteria, then yes testing would be required as no bacteria has established. I could go in further why I am not a fan as I have before lol but I think it would muddy it. There are ways to establish bacteria without testing.

Yes, I do have a pico. Same principle applies to all sizes, cost and requirements sometimes make things not feasible.

If using all live rock, no matter the size tank, will not see a cycle unless you overload. But this can be done at any point in a tanks life. Over time, that overload will be sustained or you could add more love rock to counter act.

I technical setup a new tank every week. I remove all corals and organisms. I clean, drain all the water, and readd everything back with fresh saltwater. I use same salt mix from LFS and heat within 2 degrees. This would be the same as getting live rock and setting up a new tank. There is no need to test everything is reset next water change.

This I think is where a lot of confusion is and why thread is derailed even by me. We tend to get hung up on what if something happens to spike because we are talking about dosing. We end up going off trail into what about this scenario or that scenario. I think what Brandon is pushing for is to move away from bottles and dosing for bacteria and use already established live rock, sand etc. then no testing is needed as bacteria colony is already happy and healthy just like what I do weekly.

I agree with a lot of views as well. But it's the delivery method that determines and the amount of ammonia usually used is greater than what people would have in there aquarium at any given time. As to why we don't have to wait hours or see nitrites.

This is why I'm not a fan of term cycling. As there really is no end and populations change based on available food source.

I think testing when it comes to established live rock throws people off as they expect to see results and keep adding ammonia and other stuff trying to force numbers that they won't get unless over done. Then they have this super high nitrates and wonder what is going on or asking if they are cycled and already setting up for failure. No love bacteria, should be testing to verify process. Some live bacteria but a lot of dry rock etc, add slowly and no need to test. All live, go to town reasonably and no testing. Bottle bacteria, depending on which some may need testing others don't. Fritz is the only one I trust and have used without testing. Throw and go is what I did lol. But not in this setup.

Curious what fish you can keep in a Pico, if you are ditching 100% of the water weekly? If none, then yes, I'd go with the no testing logic, you are not inputting ammonia producing material. I know Brandon has stated previously that the night before his 100% waterchanges, he feeds his corals. This raises the question, why do it immediately before a 100% waterchange? All live rock is not made equally and ammonia toxicity should not be measured in the death of livestock.

 

[CoastalTownLayabout]

that is the first I've ever seen it mentioned of the link between algae/visual details and the associated bacteria, and the oldest dated material we get for references here in quite some time

for him to write that in 89 is just really amazing to see. why/how did we drift away from that input in the hobby into this fear-based, might-not-cycle flinching test response mode. somehow, that line of thought has taken over the common skip cycles he was for sure covering there so long ago. best reference post in a long time

The whole article is Julian’s detailed view on cycling (or conditioning as it was often referred to) circa late 80s. It explores the known methods of organic and inorganic cycling methods. Yes, Fritz was available back then but prior to that Siddall’s method was used. Why? Because back then reefers used to cycle or condition a bio filter separate to the display prior to adding anything to it. Of course, Lee Ching Eng had already proved there were other ways to skin the cat.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

But there is no new science being established. What you "believe" is at odds with the science and when confronted with those facts and examples you (with categorical certainty) refuse to acknowledge them. So you can believe whatever you like, but posting it opens it to challenge.


I think you are conflating debate here with the notion that it is a good idea to verify that the process is working with that of quantifying the capacity of the process. None of us are attempting to quantify the capacity of the process.

To that end, the "cycle" never ends even if fully wiped out, as it will restart itself (of course unless extreme such as acidity, temperature, oxygen, etc are passed). it may exist in various stages of development or capacity,

Brandon's overarching opinion is that testing never needs to be done for ammonia or nitrate and further that no harmful amount can ever exist for more than 15 minutes in an aquarium that has "started to cycle" for a few days or one with any "live rock" regardless if it is new, moved or what loading is put on the system.

Note: Edited first statement to change "with quantifying" to "with that of quantifying" for clarity.

Yeah, I tend to kind of get side tract from thought lol. But quantity of bacteria determines if the desired load can be handled.bwe tend to do more harm than good I believe (opinion) when dosing ammonia vs using established bacteria or certain products (Not all). The issue is the tests don't always reflect what is happening just gives an idea. And agree cycle is always happening. I tend to go down rabbit holes lol

I agree with Brandon as far as using all live rock you won't have a cycle. As I reply to @MnFish1 , I reset up and start new every week and have not checked my tank once just turned 3 months. What is different though is I started with LPS corals which brought the bacteria on skeleton and what was attached. I added more corals then shrimp and then more corals. I added dry rock to lift and arrange coral and then added a single small fish. The tank is fully changed and everything removed and put back each week. This would be same as adding live rock to a new tank. But there is a place for testing ammonia nitrite and nitrate depending on how bacteria will be established. Unless there is some chaotic thing that happens, testing should not need to be done. But again, with out certain bottles or live rock and using ammonia, testing should be done. But new people need guidance on which way to go as testing already established lbacteria seems to cause confusion when they don't see results. Then people chime in to dose more. They then get high nitrates and are told to add this chemical or that. When a full water change if small, or skimmer and other export is all that's needed. But could have been avoided lol. Sorry I think I'm in another hole lol.

 

[BeanAnimal]

that is the first I've ever seen it mentioned of the link between algae/visual details and the associated bacteria, and the oldest dated material we get for references here in quite some time

for him to write that in 89 is just really amazing to see. why/how did we drift away from that input in the hobby into this fear-based, might-not-cycle flinching test response mode. somehow, that line of thought has taken over the common skip cycles he was for sure covering there so long ago. best reference post in a long time

We didn't drift away from it, you just ignore any context that doesn't fit your narrative and still pretend to be correct.

The very article says this:

And the last paragraph this...

Both of those points made by Julian contradict most of your what you have repeated over and over on this site. He wrote those words as qualifiers to his text. You can't just pretend that they don't exist or that you and Julian are saying anywhere near the same things. You are not.

It is not "skip cycles" that any of us have the issue with, it is:
- your advice regarding never testing and the logic for giving that advice
- telling people that ammonia can never exist in tank with LR (be it moved, cleaned, whatever)
- that "mini cycles" don't exist and can't happen
- that you are pioneering some "new cycling science" that has actually been practiced for the better part of a century
- and finally that the rest of us are stuck in the past.

So - in giving a nod to this article you are (as has played out many times recently) contradicting your very own position on so many of these things.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

Curious what fish you can keep in a Pico, if you are ditching 100% of the water weekly? If none, then yes, I'd go with the no testing logic, you are not inputting ammonia producing material. I know Brandon has stated previously that the night before his 100% waterchanges, he feeds his corals. This raises the question, why do it immediately before a 100% waterchange? All live rock is not made equally and ammonia toxicity should not be measured in the death of livestock.

I have a spiked gin goby. I actually feed a an hour or so after a water change when corals are opened. I like putting the nutrients back in. I feed benepets powder as I don't have issues with water fouling. I am thinking of dosing aquaforest aminos but haven't decided. I look that having no nutrients isn't good either as in wild there is a steady supply. My goal is low ammonia causing foods. I still get algae growing a bit but there should always be a small amount. I'm also growing macro algae as well. This also helps control nutrients.

Live rock can have many various bacteria so I agree, but live rock that has been in an established tank, will carry the bacteria needed. This is why at MaACNA I plan on trying to buy some nearly rock from Tampa Bay live rock. I believe the more carrying sources the better in my opinion.

I think there is extreme on both sides lol. There is a time to test and there is always a time to test but not needed. Understanding this is where the extremes come in and bad advice starts to flow all around. Opinions suddenly become fact. I would never say not to test to someone who wants to. I may ask why lol depending. But it's understanding the testing is where muddied opinions as fact and advice gets thrown in. My opinion lol.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The whole article is Julian’s detailed view on cycling (or conditioning as it was often referred to) circa late 80s. It explores the known methods of organic and inorganic cycling methods. Yes, Fritz was available back then but prior to that Siddall’s method was used. Why? Because back then reefers used to cycle or condition a bio filter separate to the display prior to adding anything to it. Of course, Lee Ching Eng had already proved there were other ways to skin the cat.

We had bio-spira way back when I got into the hobby. Most people did not use it though. Most of the books from that era were written in the 70's and the common advice was to use filter floss from an established system. Bio-spira was not trusted, likely because it was often not viable by the time you got it home.

UGF filters were starting to be used in combination with trickle filters and most of us just took a few bioballs or some filter floss or a cup of sand from somebody else's tank to seed our own. There was no "live rock".

When live rock did come around, most of it was shipped damp. When it showed up it was easily days to weeks out of the water and in no shape to be placed into a system with fish until cured. The die off was insane and would easily drive ammonia through the roof.

 

[MnFish1]

I have a spiked gin goby. I actually feed a an hour or so after a water change when corals are opened. I like putting the nutrients back in. I feed benepets powder as I don't have issues with water fouling. I am thinking of dosing aquaforest aminos but haven't decided. I look that having no nutrients isn't good either as in wild there is a steady supply. My goal is low ammonia causing foods. I still get algae growing a bit but there should always be a small amount. I'm also growing macro algae as well. This also helps control nutrients.

Live rock can have many various bacteria so I agree, but live rock that has been in an established tank, will carry the bacteria needed. This is why at MaACNA I plan on trying to buy some nearly rock from Tampa Bay live rock. I believe the more carrying sources the better in my opinion.

I think there is extreme on both sides lol. There is a time to test and there is always a time to test but not needed. Understanding this is where the extremes come in and bad advice starts to flow all around. Opinions suddenly become fact. I would never say not to test to someone who wants to. I may ask why lol depending. But it's understanding the testing is where muddied opinions as fact and advice gets thrown in. My opinion lol.

Just curious, what foods are you recommending - you're recommending low protein foods (a major ammonia source)?

There is a time to test and there is always a time to test but not needed.?

I look at cycling testing for a novice aquarist and anyone else who wants to do it as a large advantage over not doing so - this is because one can actually see what's happening in their tank (when just starting up - ammonia, etc levels are certainly going to be unstable). I've already admitted that I don't use ammonia testing - or dosed ammonia (except in my experiments posted here). But - the way I learned to set up tanks was either with mostly live rock - or if using dry - at least 'some' dry rock. You can look at those in the experiment section. BUT - they do contradict the comments that a given chunk of live rock can immediately assimilate ammonia to non-toxic within 15 minutes (This is not in my experience true) - and they also contradict that idea that additional (the number) of ammonia reducers do not increase with more 'food' immediately or even within a day.

 

[MnFish1]

We had bio-spira way back when I got into the hobby. Most people did not use it though. Most of the books from that era were written in the 70's and the common advice was to use filter floss from an established system. Bio-spira was not trusted, likely because it was often not viable by the time you got it home.

UGF filters were starting to be used in combination with trickle filters and most of us just took a few bioballs or some filter floss or a cup of sand from somebody else's tank to seed our own. There was no "live rock".

When live rock did come around, most of it was shipped damp. When it showed up it was easily days to weeks out of the water and in no shape to be placed into a system with fish until cured. The die off was insane and would easily drive ammonia through the roof.

Definitely!!!! - I once found. 3 foot turquoise worm. among other dead things (the worm was Alive)

 

[Garf]

You can't just pretend that they don't exist or that you and Julian are saying anywhere near the same things

Wanna bet?

 

[BubblesandSqueak]

my 112 had TBS base only and no extra bacteria.

 

[Garf]

my 112 had TBS base only and no extra bacteria.

With reference to Brandons opening post in this thread, he states that live rock transfers (skip cycle rocks in Brandon speak) are accompanied by sales folk trying to sell bottle bacteria, simultaneously. Has anyone encountered this phenomena? If so, what on earth do people think they are buying, and paying a premium for?