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

[MnFish1]

See how easy it is to debate things when we get to make proofs outside of aquarium links? if we had to stick with solely tanks we're in-process working, like what I'm doing with link updates, there'd be a lot less arguing and a lot more outcome analysis going on.

I'll keep doing the actual jobs, you guys keep not doing them but posting with certainty how my cycling science isn't working or is about to fail someone.

I think you're mixing up the conversations - or perhaps I am. But - I believe I stated the following:

1. A tank transfer whereby the same rock and fish etc are transferred to another larger tank should not have any issues, barring some kind of mistake. Thus - for this type of tank, I would highly doubt there are many or any examples showing an issue with ammonia. I don't see any debate there?

2. A new tank though it looks 'fine' may have ammonia levels that don't outright kill the fish, but damage can been seen in various tissues at sublethal levels. Unless you have done histologic sampling, there is no way for you to suggest that thats 'not true'. So - I don't see a debate here either?

3. The levels of ammonia that will outright kill fish are higher than most people are aware. I don't think there is a debate here either?

4. The methods described as 'new cycling science' have been used for decades. There really is no debate here - though, I guess it's possible that some people are not aware.

5. Unless there are signs of a tank crash - there would be very few instances where in an established tank where I would routinely test ammonia.

So - what exactly is the debate? Doesn't it come down to personal preference and the comfort level of the tank owner? IMHO - periodic testing of ammonia (total ammonia) - and using an online calculator which adjusts for temp, ph and salinity to determine free NH3 - is a cheap way to insure that your fish, etc are less likely to have issues with ammonia (whether that issue is caused by a new aquarist overfeeding, overstocking, or something else). A Seachem alert badge is also an option.

I guess I would say - that a lot of people have put a lot of thought and effort into their posts - In the interest of discussion, I think many points have been brought up that are valid. However, I don't get the logic of your comment stating 'you'll keep doing the jobs'. Yet at the same time, suggesting that there is no job to do?

 

[brandon429]

month old tank. Clown lives, but new fish dont... Sorry its long

new to saltwater, but had fresh water for 20 plus years. realizing I really dont know to much about this.... lol This is a long post as im trying to say everything that has happened and been done to this tank so you can hopefully help and tell me where I went wrong and how to fix it. Bought...

www.reef2reef.com

none of us were in that thread, but the words ammonia/new tank are there, so it must be that unicorn cycle fail.

I noticed though that the first two cycle umpires didn't take the noncycle bait

looks like updated cycling science has some sprouts growing in the wild.

 

[brandon429]

MN

nice list, but missing any links from contexts you actually worked on/that's the m.o. on repeat.


There isn't a debate from me, it's from you guys on a thread you didn't make or guide or help. The next twenty pages of this thread will be skip cycle jobs I noticed in the field, and and we can chart the outcomes. I don't claim it's groundbreaking, just a pattern to log among cycle challenges out in our forums.

this is the #1 group of cyclers that do not need testing to feel confident about their cycle status.

 

[MnFish1]

I agree that there are significant sub lethal effects. 0.5 ppm free NH3, where the gill issues were noted is quite high total ammonia.

Actually - the article states that histologic changes were seen at all 5 or 6 concentrations they used but that they increased after 0.57 ppm free NH3 - so their conclusion was that the best amount of ammonia was 0 (it seems like they were implying that for nitrite too (that there was damage at all levels - but the wording was less clear - though - it somewhat supports @Lasse 's experience that low levels can cause issues (In my opinion)

 

[MnFish1]

MN

nice list, but missing any links from contexts you actually worked on/that's the m.o. on repeat.


There isn't a debate from me, it's from you guys on a thread you didn't make or guide or help. The next twenty pages of this thread will be skip cycle jobs I noticed in the field, and and we can chart the outcomes. I don't claim it's groundbreaking, just a pattern to log among cycle challenges out in our forums.

The context I'm providing is decades of experience setting up and transferring both saltwater and freshwater tanks (and I've had tanks succeed and tanks fail over the years). And - based on that experience, we agree on many things. One last thing - unless I hear differently, the OP of a thread does not 'own' that thread per se - people can comment as they see fit - as long as its not a personal attack or totally unrelated to the topic. So - IMHO - everyone who has commented has 'guided or helped' the thread. I will also say - I don't see anyone else making up categories/names for posters - which are actually seem dismissive/somewhat insulting to those posters - such as 'cycle umpires' above.

 

[Garf]

month old tank. Clown lives, but new fish dont... Sorry its long

new to saltwater, but had fresh water for 20 plus years. realizing I really dont know to much about this.... lol This is a long post as im trying to say everything that has happened and been done to this tank so you can hopefully help and tell me where I went wrong and how to fix it. Bought...

www.reef2reef.com

none of us were in that thread, but the words ammonia/new tank are there, so it must be that unicorn cycle fail.

I noticed though that the first two cycle umpires didn't take the noncycle bait

looks like updated cycling science has some sprouts growing in the wild.

Reference that thread, the confirmed blip in ammonia was nice, and expected. I thought you said this was impossible?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

you are hinting that everyone with a cycled tank can dose 2 ppm, and it will always go down if the cycle is real, but in no cases faulty testing might confuse the keeper? I have uncountable number of links of that happening Randy...



Randy, if you would manage a cycling thread I think we could all learn a lot from that. It'll be easy: anyone who says they're stalled after 50 days, you just simply advise them to wait longer until it's .5 right? sounds easy

try it though, live time, with a hundred people sending you their pics and data. you'll see totally skip cycle tanks, like what I've carved off here, mixed in with those 50+ day "stalls" and I want to see how you handle those posts because I know you think chemistry testing is infallible and 100% reliable for cycling, for all these readers. I don't think that at all, from managing the threads I can see we needed to set up some divisions in reefing cycling where readers can simply be free of the confusing testing for ammonia, the rules that apply in interpretation of the results that change every decade.


and this particular division, live rock transfers, there is no cycle time they're all skipped and we don't test them for reasons stated.

I’m apparently more risk averse than you are.

I don’t recall many examples where 2 ppm ammonia was test error when it was actually little to no ammonia (do you have such an example?) but I don’t doubt such cases may exist, just as I do not doubt that assuming cycling was done without any testing was also in error.

 

[MnFish1]

in between skip cycle jobs/work links/ there's not a whole lot to discuss I guess.

we're not even on a gradient or a continuum of losses; there's simply no losses on file from failed cycles of any type, that means something about cycling in general.

it means the hype is just hype, and we're being hyped about ammonia risks when there are none, and we aren't getting hyped about disease risk which is the most pronounced risk to our animals lives in all of reefing.


again to state: no links are coming from anyone here who's been present in a failed cycle / loss thread, because they've never been in such a thread to link it to us.

You have set up a set of conditions that basically make it impossible to determine that a given tank failure/fish death, etc is related to ammonia. For example - I would bet most people on this site use the method of adding ammonia to x ppm and then either waiting or it to fall - with or without added bacteria. However, with regards to 'disease prep' - many of the quarantine questions that come up also involve new QT tanks that were not cycled - or partially cycled when put in use. In these tanks, where drugs are being used - ammonia may be more damaging than if the drugs were not there. Every text that I can find says the best ammonia level is a 0 ammonia level. I would underscore that point if one is adding new drugs to the mix.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Actually - the article states that histologic changes were seen at all 5 or 6 concentrations they used but that they increased after 0.57 ppm free NH3 - so their conclusion was that the best amount of ammonia was 0 (it seems like they were implying that for nitrite too (that there was damage at all levels - but the wording was less clear - though - it somewhat supports @Lasse 's experience that low levels can cause issues (In my opinion)

I saw that, but I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that zero ammonia is best for a reef tank.

 

[MnFish1]

I saw that, but I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion that zero ammonia is best for a reef tank.

Agree - After posting that I realized it wasn't crystal clear - since - there has to always be some ammonia in the tank - I should have said 'zero ammonia as measured by our common tests'.

 

[brandon429]

well stated on risk aversion choices. its the lack of actual loss links that made me turn to the completely in doubt side of the risk equation. I've been running testless cycling threads for years now for both live and dry systems and had not seen a single fail, I constantly ask my peers to scout for them and post them and we never see them either (in display tanks, for sure the risk is prominent in low surface area quarantine setups acknowledged)


I was glad to read about your toxicity studies link here

How toxic is ammonia, really?

In the context of trying to understand why so many people believe Seachem Prime was useful for them in an elevated ammonia situation, against the data in the link below about Prime potentially doing nothing to free ammonia in seawater, the question arises, why...

www.reef2reef.com

it's nice to have something to aim for in measures, but the masses simply do not have test kits / handling procedures/ that produce anything other than sheer madness where cycle testing is involved. We are never going to know if someone is close to, or far away from those stated toxicity levels because of the state of testing/reports in today's reef market. it's wildly all over the place

what isn't wildly all over the place: the specific ready dates stated for every tank in testless cycling threads and the happiness level of the reefers with running happy reefs and the perfect outcomes for years running.

 

[BeanAnimal]

All this data about the crash, the lethality, the loss of fish, the risk painted and portrayed

where the fear ends: trying to find it happening in a display tank reef. it never does

we aren't going to see that link

Please stop interjecting tired rhetoric into every response. It does nothing but obfuscate the point and the facts.

None of us are using fear to drive our conversations but you. The irony is that your entire position is aimed at teaching people to be afraid of information from published authors and members of this community who don't do "outbound work" or subscribe to YOUR opinions. Moreover, you regularly use fear to literally predict livestock wipeout dates for newcomers based on YOUR opinion of their "disease prep" and go as far as telling them that they are setting up "an endless cycle of death" if they don't ignore everyone else and follow YOUR advice.

Finally, the existence of a "link" or "thread" does not prove or disprove science or fact. Please start directly defending questions asked of you with something other than links to "work threads" or demanding such links to be proven wrong. Everyone else participating in these conversations is capable and willing to defend their positions with information from verified or trusted sources and data. Your only defense of your positions is links to threads with your opinions or demanding links to threads or "work" be done to prove you wrong.

You are really going to now demand that Randy manage a Cycling thread? I am honestly slack jawed at your tone deafness and hubris.

 

[buruskeee]

that you are pioneering some "new cycling science" that has actually been practiced for the better part of a century

He just want to own his own coined term so bad, that’s all

You can cross a street without looking both ways, but why would you?

Because then you can coin the term “skip crossing” and say it’s different from traditional jay walking.

 

[MnFish1]

it's nice to have something to aim for in measures, but the masses simply do not have test kits / handling procedures/ that produce anything other than sheer madness where cycle testing is involved. We are never going to know if someone is close to, or far away from those stated toxicity levels because of the state of testing/reports in today's reef market. it's wildly all over the place

I think confirmatory bias may be playing a role in your opinions. Anyone in the 'masses' that can't perform ONE of the many tests available accurately may have difficulty in the hobby going forward. I think you're right that some people have had issues with all of the tests, however, IMHO, perhaps the message is not 'ignore all tests when cycling' but rather 'buy a test kit that you can perform accurately, maintain it (expiration date, and follow the directions closely)'. If everyone knew how to do the tests correctly, it would greatly decrease the number of 'false reads'.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think confirmatory bias may be playing a role in your opinions. Anyone in the 'masses' that can't perform ONE of the many tests available accurately may have difficulty in the hobby going forward. I think you're right that some people have had issues with all of the tests, however, IMHO, perhaps the message is not 'ignore all tests when cycling' but rather 'buy a test kit that you can perform accurately, maintain it (expiration date, and follow the directions closely)'. If everyone knew how to do the tests correctly, it would greatly decrease the number of 'false reads'.

If the actual issue was as simple as "test kit accuracy" then we would not be having this conversation over and over.

The reality is that he outright refuses accept verified results no matter the source and to that end even has people (naive enough to not know better) adjusting their devices to read zero if they do get a result or convincing them to ignore the results based on his interpretation of a tank photo (of all things).

 

[LiverockRocks]

BRS did an evaluation of many different biome cycles. They added Dr Tims to "everything" including TBS live rock and sand in their study. personally I think that defeated the intent of true "live rock" addition and seemed to be promoting Dr Tims.

Episode 13: Biome Cycle Results, Grouper, Octopus, Clams, Wins and Missteps on 7 Reef Tanks | 52SE

Ryan brings everyone up to speed with what's been going on with the 7 52 Weeks of Reefing: Second Edition tanks.

www.bulkreefsupply.com

Save your $, there is no need for bottle bacteria when using correct ratios of TBS live rock and sand.

 

[brandon429]

agreed TBS

adding bottle bac to oceanic bac is an insult to heterogeneity worldwide

if benthic life on the rocks in rare cases was dense, and dying due to shipping stresses, don't add bac/excise off those growths and make the rock look like what we normally cure down to/only with much better coralline and micros. we stop ammonia leaks on live rock shipments by removing the source not by leaving the source then suppressing the rot from the water column doses of bac.

we cannot make, produce or buy better bacterial diversity (so far, who knows what 2040 holds) than what comes in on your live rocks.

 

[brandon429]

The linkless (bean, garf et al) just aren't going to stop filling up our pages with type it seems. latching onto someone else's thread(s) to get post work is very lampreylike

Did you two notice I never post in your threads? that's for a reason. Garf I liked your tank pic once but that was the max interaction I ever did to your threads, about your own tank. Bean just prints things on a computer, that's not even reefing.

 

[Garf]

The linkless (bean, garf et al) just aren't going to stop filling up our pages with type it seems. latching onto someone else's thread(s) to get post work is very lampreylike

Did you two notice I never post in your threads? that's for a reason. Garf I liked your tank pic once but that was the max interaction I ever did to your threads, about your own tank. Bean just prints things on a computer, that's not even reefing.

I suggest you look again, I've provided lots of links, as always.

 

[brandon429]

I didn't see any that were you working in someone else's reef tank, then relating that to this volume of words you're putting in my posts. I'll go back to check again a few pages.

For example, I wanted to see you moving a few giant reefs, to be able to claim it's so easy that no preps are needed. did you post 1 of those or not any at all whatsoever?