In a newly cycled tank how long can I go before fish need to be added

[BeanAnimal]

everyone was just giving there own opinion until your comment here clearly directed at one individual. Calling that out is not the same. You are simply starting the same fight that has taken over many threads already.

I happen to disagree with that person and the verifiably false and contradictory information that they continue to post on this subject in almost every thread related to cycling, disease or bacteria. Debates on this and numerous subjects will play out again and again on this forum between any number of people.

My issue with "that person" is reef related to the information being posted and I try to keep my responses in context to that even if it is sometimes pointed.

On the other hand, your issue with me is personal and following me around sniping at me off-topic is doing far more damage to discourse and thread direction than anything else.

If you feel that my posts are out of line you can report them to the staff, but using an open forum to attack me is not acceptable.

I don't know how bean is allowed to wreck all these threads, he must be immune to correction.

Brandon - you are far from being a victim. You play an unrelenting protagonist and almost every one of your posts is disparaging towards somebody or everyone who does not agree with you. You attacked the mods yesterday for "holding back reefing" regarding sticky posts.

You have started calling anybody who attempts to factually engage you a "troll" and deflect or change the subject when presented with valid arguments. This is not an occasional thing, it occurs daily here, not just with me.

"Wrecking threads" is wholly a matter of perspective and you are hardly in a position to complain about anybody being immune to correction. That said, I would not have you silenced. I would just prefer you to stop attacking the credibility of every person who does not agree with you and I would prefer that you debate with actual information, not rhetoric or hyperbole.

As it were, I would very happily discuss any of these topics with you, but your only recourse is to deflect and hide behind "work threads" or obfuscate by changing the subject. It makes conversation extremely hard, if not impossible. The term "nailing down Jello" comes to mind.

In any case, this "thread" is all yours. Have fun.

 

[Cell]

You think way too highly of yourself if you think I'm "following" you around. Scientific debate is one thing, what you are doing with your backhanded comments is something else. That's what you are missing here. You have good info to share and do yourself a disservice by starting out with condescension like you are some gatekeeper of science. Still waiting to learn what you meant by "redefine science".

 

[brandon429]

Ive asked to see some of work of his as a biological tank guide, consultant outcome for a job or change of direction made in someone's help thread, I routinely ask him to see those examples, declined.

Ive asked him for invasion fix examples, declined

I've asked him for unique cycling jobs he worked to the end, and the owner gives him feedback about his guiding, declined.



Bean's attacks are ignored, I don't see his posts unless I occasionally open them up and spot check

I wouldn't have known anything Cell unless you replied. I owe you two cases of digital beers now.

 

[brandon429]

I believe if the report button is used, Bean can be guided back into beneficial forum behavior.

 

[Cell]

You both help and have helped many hobbyists around here. Yet I see only one side complaining about work threads or walls of text or other things that lack real substance. As if maintaining a thread to track incidents, occurrences, or ideas is some ridiculous exercise lacking value. Last I checked this is a reefing forum not a scientific review board.

 

[brandon429]

yep and I only care about the outcome examples. when someone says thanks, posts a tank pic of laser clarity, and they're happy and their stuff didn't die, that's interpreted as a win. I like doing work just to see the outcomes and for someone to finally think one aspect of reefing is highly predictable and can be assured of something in a hobby with lots of conflicting opinions and methods.

 

[Garf]

Kidding folk into "Fish In" cycles with the only metric of success being life or death, when there are already procedures at hand that minimise such harm, feels like a step back into the past to me.

 

[Cell]

Kidding folk into "Fish In" cycles with the only metric of success being life or death, when there are already procedures at hand that minimise such harm, feels like a step back into the past to me.

Agreed. I don't see anyone recommending fish in without bottled bac though. Unless you are saying it's still "fish in" with bottled bac. When I see someone talking "fish in" cycle to me it means traditional cycling using the fish as the ammonia source with no additional starting bac.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You think way too highly of yourself...

like you are some gatekeeper of science. Still waiting to learn what you meant by "redefine science".

Your comments as well as most of Brandon's are also backhanded and you are playing the role of both white knight and moderator from a perspective of superiority, be it moral or intellectual. None of it is appropriate. Use the report button if you have an issue. YOU derailed this thread and continue to do so by attacking me outside of the confines of the topic.

I don't live in a glass house, and am fully aware that at this point I am not helping the issue and for that I apologize to everyone else here.

As for "redefining science". I am sure you understood the context, but opted for obtusity for the sake of argument.

To be sure - I never said science was static or immutable and I am certainly not the gatekeeper. My comment was directly in context to Brandon's daily use of the term "new cycling science" to refer to HIS opinions, most of which are actually not scientifically sound or proven, usually contrary to the known science and most of which he contradicts with his very own posts.

 

[Garf]

Agreed. I don't see anyone recommending fish in without bottled bac though. Unless you are saying it's still "fish in" with bottled bac. When I see someone talking "fish in" cycle to me it means traditional cycling using the fish as the ammonia source with no additional starting bac.

Unfortunately there are instances where bottle bacteria is not viable, or fast. I have no problem with that if the ammonia is monitored so action can be taken. Brandon's current guidance to new folk is "never" test ammonia. Is this not neglect?

 

[Cell]

My comment was directly in context to Brandon's daily use of the term "new cycling science" to refer to HIS opinions, most of which are actually not scientifically sound or proven, usually contrary to the known science and most of which he contradicts with his very own posts.

Old cycling science: dose ammonia, wait for a drop, wait for nitrite to rise and fall, wait for nitrate to show up. Maybe dose more ammonia and watch the levels rise and fall again.

New cycling science: once ammonia starts processing, we can safely begin to stock because nitrites aren't harmful to marine fish and we know once ammonia starts being processed, the rest will follow.

I have no issue whatsoever using these terms in this manner. What is your problem with them? What is being misrepresented?

 

[Cell]

Unfortunately there are instances where bottle bacteria is not viable, or fast. I have no problem with that if the ammonia is monitored so action can be taken. Brandon's current guidance to new folk is "never" test ammonia. Is this not neglect?

Fair. I don't agree that ammonia should NEVER be tested and would need to review the exact scenarios where this is suggested but I do agree that we probably overstate its potential effect in many scenarios and that real time monitoring with the seneye has revealed previously unknown behavior in regards to it.

Personally speaking, I test for ammonia when cycling a new tank but never after unless there is some catastrophic death event.

 

[BeanAnimal]

New cycling science: once ammonia starts processing, we can safely begin to stock because nitrites aren't harmful to marine fish and we know once ammonia starts being processed, the rest will follow.

I have been keeping marine aquariums for decades - that is not "new" or novel and does not mean that ammonia can not be present longer than expected or spike. To that end, the "science" has not changed at all.

I have no issue whatsoever using these terms in this manner. What is your problem with them? What is being misrepresented?

The subject is far broader than that when you take the body of rhetoric into context. The "no such thing as a mini cycle" and "all ammonia readings above 0" are meaningless in any take olde than 10 days, etc.

There is not enough space, or patience in this thread or forum to rehash all of it, let alone any of it. It is the very reason that I and numerous other people are at odds with Brandon's opinions.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Fair. I don't agree that ammonia should NEVER be tested and would need to review the exact scenarios where this is suggested but I do agree that we probably overstate its potential effect in many scenarios and that real time monitoring with the seneye has revealed previously unknown behavior in regards to it.

Personally speaking, I test for ammonia when cycling a new tank but never after unless there is some catastrophic death event.

I think you will find that most of us agree and understand that if things go correctly, then ammonia is not an issue that needs to be monitored. I am (and have always been) in the boat that it is hard to really damage the (this aspect of) nitrogen cycle unless you do something very dumb. I am just not on board with the rhetoric and false statements that come along with that simple point.

 

[brandon429]

its a fun exercise to search out Randy's posts regarding nitrite, try and find him not arriving at this conclusion:

"once ammonia starts processing, we can safely begin to stock because nitrites aren't harmful to marine fish and we know once ammonia starts being processed, the rest will follow."

Just search these key terms in our search bar "Randy Holmes-Farley nitrite" and I'm seeing that statement from him over and over.

 

[brandon429]

Regarding testing needs: I've asked myriad times to see an example of a reef tank that would not pass our timing-based test. I never get that link.

the only links I get are the 10 year 100% positive outcome ones, by not testing ammonia but using predictive models I set into reefcentral in about 2010 ish.

 

[Cell]

I have been keeping marine aquariums for decades - that is not "new" or novel and does not mean that ammonia can not be present longer than expected or spike. To that end, the "science" has not changed at all.


The subject is far broader than that when you take the body of rhetoric into context. The "no such thing as a mini cycle" and "all ammonia readings above 0" are meaningless in any take olde than 10 days, etc.

There is not enough space, or patience in this thread or forum to rehash all of it, let alone any of it. It is the very reason that I and numerous other people are at odds with Brandon's opinions.

Sounds like you'd like to debate semantics again.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Sounds like you'd like to debate semantics again.

Because you asked what I meant and then responded with a semantic argument.

 

[Spare time]

Cycling a tank used to be the simplest thing in the hobby, what the heck happened? lol.

Someone decided to answer every single cycling post with an essay rant.

 

[Cell]

Someone decided to answer every single cycling post with an essay rant.

At least they are trying to help address the countless, endless cycling threads full of confused hobbyists. Brevity is not Brandon's strong suit, but nobody forces anyone to read anything.