I would have had fish in there the same day but the stores were pretty empty. The rocks are just to keep it balanced, the sand was old and I rinsed it in tap water and filled it up a hour later lol. I did put some snails and a couple crabs in the same day.
In that specific context, the issue that I have is between choosing to "not test" and understanding the ramifications of being "wrong". If one understands what is going and and chooses not to test, that is on them. On the other hand telling people, not in the know, that there is never a need to test, because the profess can never cause a problem, is both misleading and not educational.
So in that vein -- I have an issue with made up a terms like "new cycling science" used to encompass "rules" that are not actually rules or absolutes.
The simple point is that there are numerous instances of "skip cycle" and "tank transfer" situations where there is unquestionably a spike in ammonia due to temporary disruption of the nitrifying bacterial colonies. To discount these as 100% "testing error" is to blatantly ignore facts, chemistry and and biology. So again using obfuscation and rhetoric to complicate something that can be easily and simply explained.
The ammonia fears we prevent here are those associated with the common, well-written fears online of noncontrol of ammonia ability during the cycle.
Framing the conveyance of factual information is not "fear" -- it is teaching people about how the nitrogen cycle works.
this particular set of reefs are immune to that condition, risk not present. I wanted to section off one type of reef tank where the cycling concern is 0%, from the second we lay eyes on the rocks to be used in the system. absolute cycling confidence begins right there, based on what we saw.
I simply don't agree and over the years you have been exposed to countless instances that clearly show this not to be the case. You simply don't count them and chalk them up to testing error.
The rub here, as has been every time this comes up is your framing things in absolutes that are not supported by the biology itself. Nitrifying bacteria are not magic, the colonies follow the same rules that all bacteria do. Lag, log, stationary and death. In the process of these invasive actions, that balance, in relation to the what needs to be processed can (and is) disrupted and it can take time, days, for it to catch back up. The debate about what constitutes dangerous levels or timeframes is another discussion and should not be conflated.
So, as I mentioned in the other thread, instead of absolute language, it would be proper to say "If this method is followed there is low risk of..." or "In most cases, even if ammonia is present, it will likely not be at damaging levels, but a simple test will help to verify...."
skip cycling isn't as shocking as it was at the start/20 years ago. it's not meant to be a shock or totally astounding new info/this is 2025 we're a bit spoiled on procedure options now...the point of the thread is simple patterning, to collect what we've been collecting and just see if any patterns present.
I am not sure that I follow. What scientifically has changed, or are you just speaking to the process that you follow now?