Cycling conventional wisdom poll: Another one??

[Garf]

Curious - how could that be - I mean whats in your tank?

Portland cemented Calcite rock, tiny bit of sand in sump, small corals, two tangs, Fiji rabbit, two clowns, two cleaner shrimp, crap loads of snails.

 

[MnFish1]

By this I mean the traditional standards for a cycled tank. If our goal is to change the approach to stocking a tank we have to re define our standards. I feel like the term cycled has its own meaning and purpose and what we are looking at here is something new. Different. But not so different. How is cycling with fish much different then calling it a completed cycle and stocking. It all seems to fall back on your choices for disease

Possible - BUT - a large percent of people do not QT at all on R2R - according to polls. Many of those seem to be 'QT' without prophylactic treatment and do fine in observation (meaning their fish aren't 'sick' - and could have been 'dropped in the tank'). I think disease prevention is a totally separate topic than 'cycling'. For example cycling usually occurs at tank startup - QT measures (no matter which one you choose if any) need to be repeated with every new addition - at least my understanding thereof.

 

[MnFish1]

Portland cemented Calcite rock, tiny bit of sand in sump, small corals, two tangs, Fiji rabbit, two clowns, two cleaner shrimp, crap loads of snails.

If you transferred all of your rock, sand, corals, fish, etc - I don't see why that would have a problem? Though calcite and Portland cement might seem to not have 'surface area' - bacteria are pretty tiny

 

[Little c big D]

Possible - BUT - a large percent of people do not QT at all on R2R - according to polls. Many of those seem to be 'QT' without prophylactic treatment and do fine in observation (meaning their fish aren't 'sick' - and could have been 'dropped in the tank'). I think disease prevention is a totally separate topic than 'cycling'. For example cycling usually occurs at tank startup - QT measures (no matter which one you choose if any) need to be repeated with every new addition - at least my understanding thereof.

That's been what I've been dancing around! That disease and cycles have overlapped. I personally don't QT but I would never advise against it. Same with the definition of a cycle. I don't think we can fix the old ways as most aren't broken. Adding to it. New ways to start a tank outside of traditional old methods. I'm all about giving people all the info and allowing them to make educated decisions on what works best for them

 

[Lasse]

Here are my thoughts on cycling/cycled/cycle based almost entirely on researching online and reading saltwater reference books with very little personal actual experience or experimentation.
Some terminology distinctions (term is italicized when used in text):
"Bioload" is being used as a very general term to indicate the total contents of living organisms and nutrient introduction/conversion in the tank. This includes animals that convert nutrients to ammonia, feeding rate or nutrients added within food or other additives, consumption rates of nutrients by different organisms, etc.
"Cycle" means the conversion of one ammonia molecule to one nitrite molecule to one nitrate molecule. Each cycle is the conversion of only one molecule, as I am using the terminology here.
"Cycler(s)" means one unit of nitrifying bacteria or other nitrifying organisms, or the biological capacity to complete one cycle.
"Cycled" to me is a nearly worthless term, as it just indicates that at least one cycle has been completed with no indication of cycling capacity. I realize this goes against current terminology, but I consider it too vague a term to be useful.
"Cycling" means that there are enough cyclers for the current tank bioload. This is independent of whether "bioload" is being supplied by fish/invertebrates/corals or by measured additions of chemical nutrients, primarily ammonia for initial cycles.
"Cycling capacity" is the number of cycles completed in some unit of time which is entirely dependent on number of cyclers and is ultimately the measure of capability of the system to handle bioload.

Ideally, a system should operate with a balanced cycling capacity and bioload which is indicated by undetectable nutrients due to enough cyclers to complete cycles very shortly after the introduction of even tiny amounts of ammonia/nitrites/nitrates. Under proper conditions, the cycles happen so fast that the only detectable nutrient is nitrates (unless there are also enough anaerobic bacteria to convert nitrates to nitrogen gas and expel it from the tank). To truly complete this idea of a system under ideal operation parameters, macroalgaes or other algaes could be used so that even nitrate and phosphate are kept quite low, but this goes beyond the discussion about nitrification cycling.

Breaking my response down based on poll possible responses:
"A cycle is only complete when Ammonia is "0", Nitrite is "0" and Nitrates are rising"
I think this is not true, as a cycle is technically complete once any ammonia is converted to nitrite that is then converted to nitrate, so presence of nitrate is an indication of at least one completed cycle. This is not to say that one cycle is an indication that there are enough cyclers to complete the loop often enough to provide enough cycling capacity for a higher bioload.

"A. The best way to cycle is to add an ammonia source alone and 'wait' for the steps above to finish"
Adding an ammonia source and waiting seems to be an effective method by harvesting free nitrifying bacteria cyclers, but it seems to be slower than adding an initial boost of cyclers. This may help teach the patience needed for marine aquariums, so it is not all bad to just wait.

"B. The best way to cycle is to add ammonia, and bacteria and 'wait' for the steps above to finish"
This seems to be the second-best method of starting a tank to reach an initial cycling tank with a certain cycling capacity (first-best is introduction of a significant amount of live rock from the ocean or an established system, especially with good growth of organisms on it). This seems to be experimentally proven to be able to occur pretty quickly. Of course, the cycling capacity needs to be considered when planning how heavy the bioload will be and should be measured through indicators like ammonia decrease in a certain time period.

"C. The best way to cycle a tank is to add bacteria and fish on day 1 (per instructions)"
Though this method works and has been done for years, I am undecided on this method. Though I think there are some benefits to doing this more natural method, I also do not like the direct intentional stress on the first fish (even if they are "hardy"). The chemical method using compounds such as ammonia chloride seems more humane but may leave out important biological details that are just not yet understood fully.

"A. You can take all of the stuff (rock, filter, fish, coral) and put in a new tank"
If by this we consider a total tank transfer, I think this is very doable and has been proven by many in the past. If the cycling capacity is decreased while bioload remains the same (i.e. only using part of the live rock or filter media while transferring all fish/corals), there may still be ammonia detectable for a time until the nitrifying bacteria cyclers increase and bring up the cycling capacity to match current bioload. Due to actual measurement methods, the spike in detectable ammonia and nitrites may be too small to see but is dependent on how much lower the cycling capacity is than current bioload.

"B. If you move rock, fish, coral to a new tank, you will have a cycle"
Well, by my definitions, yes, there will be a new cycle (as I consider new cycles to be occurring continually upon introduction of nutrients in the presence of any nitrifying cyclers). By what I consider the intention of this response, a measurable spike in ammonia and/or nitrites should only occur if bioload from transferred items/occupants is increased proportional to cycling capacity (or cycling capacity is decreased in proportion to bioload). If not, ammonia and/or nitrites should not increase above the cycling capacity to be converted and remain unmeasureable.

"A. If you add significant bioload to a 'cycled tank, you risk a new cycle"
Yes, I think so, since there will be a lag time of greater introduction than conversion until the nitrifying cyclers multiply enough to balance cycle capacity with bioload. This assumes that there are not a lot of dormant nitrifying cyclers that have not died off after previous excess multiplication. I don't know numbers (how much bioload increase, how long until nitrifying cyclers starve, etc.) on this, but I assume that there is potential for some increase in bioload to be manageable due to starving/dormant-but-not-dead-yet nitrifying cyclers. If bioload increases match the multiplication rate of cyclers, the cycling capacity may increase fast enough to balance biolad and keep ammonia/nitrites undetectable.

"B. If you add large bioload, to a cycled tank, nothing will happen - all the bact are there"
As stated in the previous option, this may be true in certain circumstances but is dependent on a lot of factors such as actual total volume, surface/appropriate conditions for nitrifying cyclers, amount of current bioload, actual amount of bioload increase, etc.
If I cycled a 100-gallon aquarium with one small rock and only one 2" damsel until cycling capacity balanced with bioload to ensure fast enough cycles occurring to keep ammonia and nitrite undetectable, then added ten 10" groupers and fed even sparsely but enough to keep them alive, it would seem guaranteed that ammonia will spike tremendously (and thus nitrite and nitrate will also spike as cycles complete). This obvious extreme demonstrates the principle behind my opinion here.

I think of nitrification like package delivery or production. There are 3 types of delivery vehicles (cyclers): A carries/converts ammonia to nitrite, B carries/converts nitrite to nitrate, and C carries/converts nitrate to nitrogen gas. For nitrification, we can ignore C and focus entirely on A and B.
If you start the delivery business small (few cyclers) because demand is small (low bioload, therefore low cycling capacity necessary), the few packages (nutrients) can be delivered with few cyclers. As demand increases (raising bioload), more packages need to be delivered (cycling capacity must increase). Since it takes time to hire more deliverers (cyclers, increased potentially with bottled bacteria or introduction of mature filters/media/live-rock/live-sand/biofilm/old water) and there are two different types of deliverers that need hired (A and B), the higher demand cannot be processed immediately and the warehouse (either A, B, or A and B) starts to fill with packages (nutrients). If demand increases faster (higher bioload than increase of cyclers/cycling capacity) than delivery (cycles), there will always be a detectable surplus of packages at the warehouse (ammonia/nitrite measureable in the tank/system). By hiring more deliverers (increase cyclers), deliveries (cycles) will occur faster to deal with the surplus of packages (nutrients) until a steady stream of deliveries keeps the surplus undetectable at the warehouse. At perfect balance, every package (ammonia/nitrite) is picked up immediately so there is never a surplus at the warehouse (nutrients not detectable) and there are no extra deliverers (cyclers). Eventually, there may be too many deliverers (cyclers) over-hired when there are not enough packages for each one to carry (bioload less than or balanced with cycling capacity). This results in deliverers quitting or being fired (eventual starvation/die-off of excess cyclers) until balance is again restored.
In our delivery system, there are two stages (A and B) that are different. The first deliverer type A carries a package that contains a bomb with potential to go off and will become more destructive the more packages there are in surplus at a given time (ammonia is quite acutely toxic), so it is extremely critical that warehouse A does not have a surplus of packages (ammonia) that could be damaging to nearby occupants (fish/etc.). At warehouse B, the bombs have been diffused but the contents remaining may still be somewhat harmful, maybe mostly just stressful, to carry (nitrite is non-toxic/not as toxic as ammonia/only a stress on marine fish, still an ongoing discussion with different viewpoints whether it needs to be measured), thus the deliveries from warehouse B are not as critical for the well-being of the nearby occupants but would still be a surplus at the warehouse if not delivered, thus indicating an incomplete cycle.
Once the package gets delivered by B (converted to nitrate), it is no longer dangerous but lures a lot of looters (undesirable bacteria/algae/organisms due to high nitrates) that can just cause problems if the packages are not moved to the final customer and removed from the delivery service (converted to nitrogen gas and expelled from the system).


Well, that is a lot of text, but I hope it helps this discussion and that I can continue to learn and better-understand the processes in these complex biological ecosystems we keep in aquariums!

dangit @Soren I could not find anything to disagree with here (any important at least). Excellent IMO.

However Photosynthetic organism may be seen as positive/neutral/negative according to contribute to the bioload. They are a bioload because of cell metabolism 7/24 but during the photoperiod they consume more waste (from all bioload in the system) than they produce. If they are - on the whole - a bioload or not - I will say depend on their growrate IMO. A well working 7/24 algae scrubber will for sure reduce the total bioload IMO. Will corals will do it on the whole? - I think so - especially if measurements (without ang GFO or denitrification) shows decreasing numbers in PO4 and NO3

@Daniel@R2R or any other mod - make this post sticky in this part of the forum

I’m guessing 70 to 80% of my total surface area is glass or plastic. Removing that surface area by tank transfer may well be a short term problem for me, along with plenty others, I’m sure.

I´m not sure that´s you are right according to surface area. Your plastic and glass windows is smooth like the surface of a lake in a summer day without wind. Your sand and your rocks surface is like the North Sea during an autumn storm in November.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Garf]

dangit @Soren I could not find anything to disagree with here (any important at least). Excellent IMO.

However Photosynthetic organism may be seen as positive/neutral/negative according to contribute to the bioload. They are a bioload because of cell metabolism 7/24 but during the photoperiod they consume more waste (from all bioload in the system) than they produce. If they are - on the whole - a bioload or not - I will say depend on their growrate IMO. A well working 7/24 algae scrubber will for sure reduce the total bioload IMO. Will corals will do it on the whole? - I think so - especially if measurements (without ang GFO or denitrification) shows decreasing numbers in PO4 and NO3

@Daniel@R2R or any other mod - make this post sticky in this part of the forum


I´m not sure that´s you are right according to surface area. Your plastic and glass windows is smooth like the surface of a lake in a summer day without wind. Your sand and your rocks surface is like the North Sea during an autumn storm in November.

Sincerely Lasse

I guess if I ever have to transfer to a new aquarium, I could test nitrite, pmsl
That should tell me. I could start a “work thread” lol

 

[Soren]

dangit @Soren I could not find anything to disagree with here (any important at least). Excellent IMO.

However Photosynthetic organism may be seen as positive/neutral/negative according to contribute to the bioload. They are a bioload because of cell metabolism 7/24 but during the photoperiod they consume more waste (from all bioload in the system) than they produce. If they are - on the whole - a bioload or not - I will say depend on their growrate IMO. A well working 7/24 algae scrubber will for sure reduce the total bioload IMO. Will corals will do it on the whole? - I think so - especially if measurements (without ang GFO or denitrification) shows decreasing numbers in PO4 and NO3

@Daniel@R2R or any other mod - make this post sticky in this part of the forum

Sincerely Lasse

Thanks for more input on bioload. The reason I mentioned invertebrates/corals/macroalgaes in bioload was much as you mentioned, not necessarily an addition to bioload, but they have an effect. Total bioload (for my considerations) is a combination of all factors that either contribute or detract from measurable bioload. I will also note that these factors make a big difference on measures of bioload through common means, since a larger system may have a significant amount more in nutrients, but they can be processed by the increase of lifeforms so that measuring ammonia/nitrite/nitrate at any given time may still show zero because it is being processed quickly enough to not be able to measure it.

For example, two cycling systems of the same volume could safely carry different numbers of fish depending on other factors. One with macroalgae/turf scrubber could deal with nutrients better than a FOWLR. This would mean that both systems could have the same measureable bioload but different bioload factors.
Also, two cycling systems of vastly different volumes could be processing vastly different total amounts of nutrients, but both should/could still read zero for ammonia and nitrite due to balancing bioload factors.

Hopefully this helps clarify my thoughts on bioload and shows my learning and agreement with your information above.

I intentionally left my discussion of bioload factors somewhat vague on this thread, since I both do not have enough experience to answer conclusively for each factor and do not want to redirect discussion here to making specific stocking lists to accommodate different specific bioload factor considerations.

 

[Theulli]

I cycle my tanks with fish food and waiting - I have never had a ‘stuck cycle’ with this method to the point where I am still a little mystified on how stuck cycles actually happen...

I have also multiple times moved my rock and filter media to another tank. You DO have a cycle, because it’s easy to underestimate how much work the sand is doing and generally you don’t move the sand, but it can be very very short. The exception might be if you are moving from large to small and so have an abundance of rock in the new tank but I have always gone the other way

 

[Tamale]

I love these big discussions on current cycling methods/views.
I think @MnFish1 is really onto something about the possibility of a new term to coincide with the nitrogen cycle. What with the advent of bottle bac and essentially eliminating the threat of ammonia/nitrite (if it even is toxic) so rapidly now.
It really seems as if the recent debates revolve more around what people mean by a “cycled” tank more than how to cycle in general.

 

[Soren]

I love these big discussions on current cycling methods/views.
I think @MnFish1 is really onto something about the possibility of a new term to coincide with the nitrogen cycle. What with the advent of bottle bac and essentially eliminating the threat of ammonia/nitrite (if it even is toxic) so rapidly now.
It really seems as if the recent debates revolve more around what people mean by a “cycled” tank more than how to cycle in general.

I think that is exactly right: the questions and debates are more about terminology than specific methodology, since many methods work for a tank that supports life.

My personal opinion is that the nitrogen cycle specifically should be considered only one small building block in the process to reach a tank that supports life.

 

[Tamale]

I think that is exactly right: the questions and debates are more about terminology than specific methodology, since many methods work for a tank that supports life.

My personal opinion is that the nitrogen cycle specifically should be considered only one small building block in the process to reach a tank that supports life.

Being new to the practical side of reefing (which is important) but having followed these discussions for a long time I agree.
The issue with there being so much ambiguity is that it leads to 10 different opinions that can become very confusing and scary to a new reefer. “Is my tank cycled?” Never has a definitive answer as there is no definitive benchmark that is recognized. Even when people agree it’s “fish safe” there will be differences on whether it’s cycled or if a tank that adds new bio-load is EVER cycled. This then leads to a lot of apprehension amongst those new to practical reef keeping.

I say this going off my own very recent and continuing experiences haha

 

[Soren]

Being new to the practical side of reefing (which is important) but having followed these discussions for a long time I agree.
The issue with there being so much ambiguity is that it leads to 10 different opinions that can become very confusing and scary to a new reefer. “Is my tank cycled?” Never has a definitive answer as there is no definitive benchmark that is recognized. Even when people agree it’s “fish safe” there will be differences on whether it’s cycled or if a tank that adds new bio-load is EVER cycled. This then leads to a lot of apprehension amongst those new to practical reef keeping.

I say this going off my own very recent and continuing experiences haha

This is why I think the proper term should be "cycling" rather than "cycled", since the cycle must occur continually upon every addition of ammonia (whether by food or life-form) and is entirely dependent on bioload factors, both additions and subtractions to the bioload.

Maybe there needs to be some metric for measuring (or, at least estimating) total bioload and corresponding methods to process and measure the evidence of bioload capacity for a new tank. This way, a start-up could be accomplished better with a specific stocking plan that generates a cycling method with measurable results at completion. I know this is similar to what exists now with ammonia and nitrite measurements, but I do not read much about bioload with these methods. Most seem to be based on a ppm measure of ammonia that is converted within a certain time, but the certain time and the ppm ammonia should change dependent on intended stocking types and levels.

 

[Theulli]

Being new to the practical side of reefing (which is important) but having followed these discussions for a long time I agree.
The issue with there being so much ambiguity is that it leads to 10 different opinions that can become very confusing and scary to a new reefer. “Is my tank cycled?” Never has a definitive answer as there is no definitive benchmark that is recognized. Even when people agree it’s “fish safe” there will be differences on whether it’s cycled or if a tank that adds new bio-load is EVER cycled. This then leads to a lot of apprehension amongst those new to practical reef keeping.

I say this going off my own very recent and continuing experiences haha

Yeah it can be tough - I find the wide array of opinions on how to quarantine or treat fish even worse.

Anyway, I have never had issue with the simple rule of dropping some fish food in, waiting for ammonia to drop to zero, then adding livestock slowly, hardiest first, most aggressive last, delicate inverts start introducing them cheapest and hardiest first and adjust timeline based on how they do.

 

[Tamale]

This is why I think the proper term should be "cycling" rather than "cycled", since the cycle must occur continually upon every addition of ammonia (whether by food or life-form) and is entirely dependent on bioload factors, both additions and subtractions to the bioload.

Maybe there needs to be some metric for measuring (or, at least estimating) total bioload and corresponding methods to process and measure the evidence of bioload capacity for a new tank. This way, a start-up could be accomplished better with a specific stocking plan that generates a cycling method with measurable results at completion. I know this is similar to what exists now with ammonia and nitrite measurements, but I do not read much about bioload with these methods. Most seem to be based on a ppm measure of ammonia that is converted within a certain time, but the certain time and the ppm ammonia should change dependent on intended stocking types and levels.

That seems fair to me! Another thing that has always thrown me is where the number of ppm ammonia is dosed to initially comes from. Do two clowns produce 2ppm of ammonia in 24hrs? How do we know? There’s just a lot of variables. Especially since the amount of ammonia produced in the stock lists for a 20g and a 100g are definitely going to be different.