Cycling a new tank- am I doing this correctly?????

[MnFish1]

The problem with 'clean up crews' in tanks as compared to oceans is - in tanks - whatever the clean up crew eats - comes back in 60-70 percent (@Lasse)? Waste. In the ocean the waste is washed away into multiple trillions of gallons. Clean up crews - IMHO - are not a solution - nor a requirement. My harlequin tusk ate my enitire CUC - I did not re-add - and have seen no new differences.

 

[brandon429]

I’ve seen red brush algae beat our attempts at burning and removal, was growing right back, and then as last try a load of turbo snails eat the algae down to bare rock and keep it that way in a few posts

but then we tried adding them to the next round test on a different tank, they got boosted waste pellets into the system but crawled over the intended target. Hard to harness


it may be possible that someone used to matching invasions to cuc will have a better chance. I’ve only kept ceriths and astreas they never did much.

 

[Lasse]

comes back in 60-70 percent (@Lasse)?

Exactly - therefore it is important to add the CUC directly in the start - hence hinder the algae to build up to much biomass before CUC is added.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[damsels are not mean]

Exactly - therefore it is important to add the CUC directly in the start - hence hinder the algae to build up to much biomass before CUC is added.

Sincerely Lasse

I agree. The only solution to large growths of algae is manual removal. Herbivores keep it from getting to that point.

The problem with 'clean up crews' in tanks as compared to oceans is - in tanks - whatever the clean up crew eats - comes back in 60-70 percent Waste. In the ocean the waste is washed away into multiple trillions of gallons.

Yes, but we replace that with our nutrient export methods of choice. Herbivores turn the sequestered nutrients into something that can be removed chemically (or biologically through coral and refugium growth), or they simply turn it into non-problematic forms of biomass as opposed to algae.

 

[MnFish1]

I agree. The only solution to large growths of algae is manual removal. Herbivores keep it from getting to that point.



Yes, but we replace that with our nutrient export methods of choice. Herbivores turn the sequestered nutrients into something that can be removed chemically (or biologically through coral and refugium growth), or they simply turn it into non-problematic forms of biomass as opposed to algae.

Yes - thats the 'plan'. yet there are 100's of posts complaining about algae.
I.E. - you do not need a clean up crew - instead you need a nutrient export method

 

[BContos]

I’m a little confused by testing results- I’ve went up to 2 ppm ammonia and almost back down to zero now. I have seen Nitrates near 40ppm but my Nitrites have always stayed at 0. My understanding was I would see a rise in Nitrites before it was converted to Nitrates but I have yet to see it other than at 0.

I’m not rushing or panicking before anyone wants to jump my case on it I’m simply trying to understand why I haven’t seen a spike in Nitrites? Could it be an error on the test or because I have so much established live rock I won’t see it? Did I do something wrong?

 

[damsels are not mean]

I’m a little confused by testing results- I’ve went up to 2 ppm ammonia and almost back down to zero now. I have seen Nitrates near 40ppm but my Nitrites have always stayed at 0. My understanding was I would see a rise in Nitrites before it was converted to Nitrates but I have yet to see it other than at 0.

I’m not rushing or panicking before anyone wants to jump my case on it I’m simply trying to understand why I haven’t seen a spike in Nitrites? Could it be an error on the test or because I have so much established live rock I won’t see it? Did I do something wrong?

Those tests sometimes give false positives though not usually that high. It's possible the rock already has enough nitrifying capacity in terms of nitrite that the cycle doesn't look right.

 

[Lasse]

because I have so much established live rock I won’t see it?

@MnFish1 has shown that this can happen in another thread here. That's likely what have happen for you.

I.E. - you do not need a clean up crew - instead you need a nutrient export method

My experiences tell me that you will never succeed to eradicate algae growth with nutrient control if you not goeas as low as you also eradicate your corals (or get cyano/dino blooms) A good CUC is critical in order to get an algae-free aquarium

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

nitrites are no longer factored in display reef tank cycling so disregard further testing here for any cycling param, its done. old school, fear based cycling had us factoring nitrites

but not anyone using new cycling science (that listens to Randy's article on nitrites in the reef tank, they're neutral for us in display cycles whether the reading is positive high or negative low)

your live rock component masks in testing what the inert portions can't do, and within a week they'll be able to anyway by mere association. start on disease prevention planning, cease all consideration of cycle its done.

you couldnt overload it, or retrograde it, or be halfway done, unless you plan on adding 10 tangs at once (I still think it will carry them, there isn't a failed cycle on this entire board any forum) this cycle status is closed. concern no more.

your sole focus now is not skipping disease protocols, and adding pet store fish unprepped where they start to die by the summer time.

 

[BContos]

Thank you to everyone who has given me advice!!

 

[MnFish1]

nitrites are no longer factored in display reef tank cycling so disregard further testing here for any cycling param, its done. old school, fear based cycling had us factoring nitrites

but not anyone using new cycling science (that listens to Randy's article on nitrites in the reef tank, they're neutral for us in display cycles whether the reading is positive high or negative low)

your live rock component masks in testing what the inert portions can't do, and within a week they'll be able to anyway by mere association. start on disease prevention planning, cease all consideration of cycle its done.

you couldnt overload it, or retrograde it, or be halfway done, unless you plan on adding 10 tangs at once (I still think it will carry them, there isn't a failed cycle on this entire board any forum) this cycle status is closed. concern no more.

your sole focus now is not skipping disease protocols, and adding pet store fish unprepped where they start to die by the summer time.

I am not quite sure that you can say what you did above quite as strongly as you did. Many people still follow, and recommend testing/following nitrites (especially with cycling). You do not feel its necessary - nor do some others. IMHO, it depends on the method you're using to cycle. I do not believe that there is a formal 'new cycling science' definition that is used throughout the aquarium hobby.

Randy's article said nitrites are rarely (if ever, i.e. almost impossible) - to reach toxic levels in marine aquaria - so routinely testing is not important. The one time I believe he did state testing can be useful is when starting a new tank to follow the cycle.

IMHO - if you're just transferring 1 tank to another - I wouldn't test anything (unless it was a prolonged transfer).
If I was using the 'shrimp' method - or something similar without adding bacteria - and dead rock. I would probably test all 3.
If I was adding a bacteria with 'dead rock' - that contained bacteria that can process ammonia and nitrite - I probably wouldn't test it.
If I was adding rock, bacteria and fish - I wouldn't test anything.

I would say as a "RULE" - whatever method you're using to cycle your tank - follow the instructions on that product/method.

 

[MnFish1]

A good CUC is critical in order to get an algae-free aquarium

In my tank, my harlequin tusk literally eats every 'clean up crew'. I have not noticed a huge difference in algae. I also do not tend to overfeed. I guess in my tank - my tangs are my CUC

 

[Lasse]

I guess in my tank - my tangs are my CUC

Exactly - Tangs are excellent CUC - for larger tanks a must - IMO. However - when you start a new aquarium some algae grazers - tangs, other vegetarian fish, hermits, urchins or snails must be present before you start to run any light on the tank,

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Exactly - Tangs are excellent CUC - for larger tanks a must - IMO. However - when you start a new aquarium some algae grazers - tangs, other vegetarian fish, hermits, urchins or snails must be present before you start to run any light on the tank,

Sincerely Lasse

Yes - I agree completely. I like watching them too - its just that my tank looked like a battlefield the last time I replenished my CUC - with dead dismembered crabs, snails, etc.

 

[brandon429]

here's a neat way to handle the pro/con nitrite debate

for sure people still test it. but, at any time, if we forego testing nitrite we can produce years worth of running cycles that never falter from an assigned specific start date, and inversely if we factor nitrite in the cycle disease expression from skipping fallow and quarantine doesn't lessen one bit, not one measurable bit. so its ok to test for nitrite, but if you dont, nothing bad ever happens.

and if you do test for nitrite, that doesn't lend an advantage because in the appropriate cycling threads we're not lacking anything from foregoing nitrite. additionally, api nitrite doesnt just become the worlds most reliable tester either/among the current votes we can see api garners on polls. its still api, subject to a litany of read issues and prep issues.

(and if the pollees aren't using or reading their kits correctly, that's a vote that doesn't count, the degree of this is tbd but anytime we run seneye alongside api ammonia there sure seems to be a stark disagreement)

nobody ever tells us that when testing for nitrite, it may not be an accurate test. Lasse used hanna digital and was able to remark on levels/hundredths levels in running displays and that was neat data to know/to complete the nitrification pie as a whole

here, in this thread, nitrite factoring is useless. even if the reading above showed positive, doesn't matter, positive nitrite readout cycles started with life anyway are exactly what we collect for pattern study in other threads- and the effect is none, just like Randy's article implies. if our fish were dying left and right, or in pattern within a few weeks after starting, I'd fairly report it and make changes. but they're not. nitrite-compliant cyclers get exactly as many help posts in the fish disease forum by skipping fallow and qt as any other cycler.

testing for nitrite in a display cycle will increase fear, anxiety, and bottle bac sales. I'm feeling solid this can be proven by links of pattern. in yet another thread we're up to 16 pages only tracking times api nitrite made something think their cycle bac were dead, some folks bought up to 4 more rounds of bac. not any of them were dead, they were all tricked purchases / tricked by old cycling science and youtube videos from macna furthering the false fear. I personally think nitrite fear tends to replace fish disease prep focus, its among the top reasons I can't stand nitrite testing in cycles nowadays. there aren't any losses tied to it, disease deserves the concern.


*disclaimer

I realize we will now hear that api nitrite is fine and accurate. that's convenient.

we will know I guess within ten years: when everyone has access to digital testers to measure the appropriate control dates which api now indicates in cycles to range 30-90 days (have threads on the three month nitrite fear)

 

[brandon429]

if someone wants to await nitrite compliance however long that may be, and they also instate best practices for vector controls from the disease forum, and they have plans for feeding of exceptional quality for the new fish- I guess that's a homerun in anyone's book then.

 

[Lasse]

The importance of nitrite measurements in a reef aquarium

There have been a lot of threads about nitrification and cycling lately. IMO - the most important measurements tool you have in order to indicate if your cycle is done or not is the nitrite level. It is a rather stable tool and will give stable results with few interferences. One of the myths...

www.reef2reef.com

No more to say

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

here's a neat way to handle the pro/con nitrite debate

for sure people still test it. but, at any time, if we forego testing nitrite we can produce years worth of running cycles that never falter from an assigned specific start date, and inversely if we factor nitrite in the cycle disease expression from skipping fallow and quarantine doesn't lessen one bit, not one measurable bit. so its ok to test for nitrite, but if you dont, nothing bad ever happens.

and if you do test for nitrite, that doesn't lend an advantage because in the appropriate cycling threads we're not lacking anything from foregoing nitrite. additionally, api nitrite doesnt just become the worlds most reliable tester either/among the current votes we can see api garners on polls. its still api, subject to a litany of read issues and prep issues.

(and if the pollees aren't using or reading their kits correctly, that's a vote that doesn't count, the degree of this is tbd but anytime we run seneye alongside api ammonia there sure seems to be a stark disagreement)

nobody ever tells us that when testing for nitrite, it may not be an accurate test. Lasse used hanna digital and was able to remark on levels/hundredths levels in running displays and that was neat data to know/to complete the nitrification pie as a whole

here, in this thread, nitrite factoring is useless. even if the reading above showed positive, doesn't matter, positive nitrite readout cycles started with life anyway are exactly what we collect for pattern study in other threads- and the effect is none, just like Randy's article implies. if our fish were dying left and right, or in pattern within a few weeks after starting, I'd fairly report it and make changes. but they're not. nitrite-compliant cyclers get exactly as many help posts in the fish disease forum by skipping fallow and qt as any other cycler.

testing for nitrite in a display cycle will increase fear, anxiety, and bottle bac sales. I'm feeling solid this can be proven by links of pattern. in yet another thread we're up to 16 pages only tracking times api nitrite made something think their cycle bac were dead, some folks bought up to 4 more rounds of bac. not any of them were dead, they were all tricked purchases / tricked by old cycling science and youtube videos from macna furthering the false fear. I personally think nitrite fear tends to replace fish disease prep focus, its among the top reasons I can't stand nitrite testing in cycles nowadays. there aren't any losses tied to it, disease deserves the concern.


*disclaimer

I realize we will now hear that api nitrite is fine and accurate. that's convenient.

we will know I guess within ten years: when everyone has access to digital testers to measure the appropriate control dates which api now indicates in cycles to range 30-90 days (have threads on the three month nitrite fear)

Brandon - this is a problem with testing in general - whether in an aquarium, blood tests for cholesterol, or any others.

Lets say - I test 1000 people for total cholesterol. and 20 of those have 'abnormal - significant' results - I dont care about the definition - its just an example. For 980 people - the test was 'worthless'. For the 20 people who avoided a heart attack - it was not worthless.

The fundamentals of testing - suggest - that testing is most worthwhile when there is a reason to do the test. Not just blanket 'screening' (Most screening tests have been shown to be not as worthwhile - like the former 'annual chest X-ray') etc.

So - My point was - in cycling a tank - there is probably a role for nitrite testing. I am not so sure that this extends to weekly nitrite testing in a display tank (I do not think it does).

Your blanket statement - as if its 'gospel' that nitrite testing is (paraphrased) worthless - is not correct IMHO.

Here is my counterargument to all of your statements about the unnecessary use of bottled bacteria: If you take the dollars spent on bottled bacteria as 'insurance' (lets say you do a tank transfer - and though probably not necessary - its done) - and use bottled bacteria - its a drop in the bucket compared to coral foods, amino acids, etc - that are likely doing nothing. The bacteria is 'insurance' - when making changes.

 

[brandon429]

But you don't have any work threads on the matter, zero, none?

you aren't able to state from any direct inference any aspect of nitrite impacts in cycling or fish disease is that correct? if you had 10 or 20 examples of decent patterning I'd accept your summary, but not without any


I feel that the work threads I've collected for the past decade present sufficient patterning in the matter to make commentary.

any way its sliced, B's cycle is done here and we're in the fish disease planning (or skip planning) phase.

Lasse's link is the opposite of a work thread. zero cycling examples collected and posted showing other's reefs, zero examples of disease control, no degree of other's tanks used to present an outcome pattern and 100% opinions by the op for nine pages. the whole reason we debate reacting to nitrite in reefing is to see how those subjects are impacted.

work threads are pages, and pages, and pages, of solely other people's tanks and from their posted outcomes we draw the paradigms. those are harder to manage, its why few make them.

the safe trend is making posts where the writer controls all the info, evaluation, and feedback.

 

[brandon429]

BContos another way to see things is that waiting longer, or dosing something to your tank in reaction to the api kits, cannot make a safer environment for your fish. how you directly prep for disease using the fish disease forum sticky links will determine your fish longevity.


by now your dry surfaces have taken on the bacteria just fine from the live rock component. no more cycling worries, aim worries into preventing the classic 6-8 month early tank fish losses and best methods don't come from someone's single opinion post, they come from the fish disease forum which is literally a hundred pages of work thread examples. Nobody hears about Jay's home reef tank as he makes pattern outcomes solely in others tanks....work threads vs opinion pieces.