@Dr. Reef I seen it mentioned a few times about tests using Seneye? Is there a thread for this I can't seem to find it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought you added organic carbon to some of the tanks when there was no change in ammonia levels? All tanks have Co2 and Bicarb as carbon sources for autotrophs?You are absolutely right @Lasse , some of that information is not correct as i was still learning and posting. I have noticed that once carbon source is added bottle bacteria seems to cycle and colonize much faster compared to sterile tank with no carbon source.
@Dr. Reef I seen it mentioned a few times about tests using Seneye? Is there a thread for this I can't seem to find it?
Possiblie - but do you not think that manufacturers - that are selling these products with directions that state "Do A, then B, then add Bacteria - then add fish the same day" have done no research. IMHO - the question is not proving the obvious - that these products work - the proof should be that they 'do not work'. And there is no proof - that I have seen that they do not work - only 'there is concern' that they do not work.What isn’t answered by this thread, and also nobody in the hobby can answer: does fish-in cycling harm fish, though they don’t act harmed and they feed, and they swim normally, and the water stays clear which are all hallmarks of total nh3 control, not failure to control
the only way the hobby is going to know this answer is for someone to run a fish in cycle using live seneye nh3 monitoring and we can take max nh3 levels attained and reference marine fish breeding/ culture studies involving ammonia maximums permitted
I have already seen three fish-in cycles (posts) on seneye and one went max hundredths ppm, not a single one hit tenths, and two of the three hit maximum nh3 of thousandths ppm which is a factual safe zone. It’s what our reefs currently run at
My question - who is using a nitrite reading? I use these products here is the scenario:100% agreed
I do not think that the brands who advocate fish-in cycling are out to harm fish, and be shunned by the masses for a failed product. They’ve pulled off the opposite. They deserve their millions, I’m just determined for them not to make a penny off a nitrite reading, keeps me busy daily.
Thank you for this synopsis. I am sure this will help many reefers in the future.Yes thank you for posting on this very helpful thread
I have some summaries to provide that I took from this thread, not sure which post it’s too many lol to count:
- Early pages, Dr Tims commentary on how bacteria feed via natural means we don’t account for, should we skip feeding. Cycling charts are not built on additives and bottle bac, cycle charts are decades old and remark upon natural pickup of bacteria, and feed. Bottle bac however speeds up this wait, as we’d expect from today’s tech
-this whole thread ends the debate on whether bottle bac works or is snake oil. It works
-** we learned the carbon-boosting trick here of adding a pinch of flake food to any cycle, to speed it up. Ammonium chloride isn’t carbon. carbon gets in anyway if we provide none...it’s how cycles completed before this thread, what causes dirt on blinds, or particulate clogging of AC inflow vents in a house is total carbon, it wafts in all our tanks. But if you boost C then a cycle goes faster than waiting for it naturally
We learned here via DR and MNFish that alternating species of bacteria are found in cycling products, they love carbon, and in time when bacterial samples are taken from established tanks (aquabiomics dna sampling) the populations have shifted away from original added strains. Each successive strain still carried the ammonia loading, that’s neat.
-though nitrite was tracked here, it didn’t hamper ammonia cycling and that’s still a highly debated topic. In my cycling threads we simply exclude all nitrite data, others include it in determining a start date, ongoing studies remain
- expected timeframes are set for each brand here. Notice how none of them take longer than a cycling chart to complete
- the winner and costliest bottle bac was fritz
- we saw a couple instances of dead bottle bac, that means fish-in cyclers can expect a small loss rate per 100 tanks if they don’t pre verify ammonia
- even after all this time, Dr Reefs use of Api ammonia remain the cleanest testing I’ve ever seen. I’ve never seen anyone post a hard zero yellow reading like his, from any reef, since this post lol. Unfortunately, the entire planet still operates on the belief that living reefs can allow constant .25 free ammonia and still be symptom-free in the display
but undoing that notion gives me something to do online everyday, so I like it
meta summary by me, not everyone will agree: today’s fish from fish-in cycles aren’t killed by nh3 that’s easy to control given the dilutions we run and these bottle bac that were on average ready to reduce ammonia in 72 hours. What kills the fish comes about six months later, and it’s brook, velvet, uro, or crypto.
all this power to control ammonia results in massive fish loss by everyone skipping fallow like it’s the swingin seventies
That in and of itself is incredibly impressive!we don't even have any dead bottles charted out, 100% rate so far.
FW bacteria is more effective than saltwater cousin. In fact if you wanna cycle a cycle SW faster drop the salinity to brackish levels and keep alk up and you will cycle lot faster than 1.025.I wonder if any of the FW bacteria in a bottle products are this effective? I don't ever see them discussed in the FW community, although I know of at least one (API) off the top of my head.