Fishless Cycle Question

OP
Steelheader09

Steelheader09

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
354
Location
Maine
I find the study of allowable start dates fascinating. It’s no longer about wait longer, people want a known safe start date and we have patterns on file to allow for that. The right degree of wait is the length of time it takes a particular approach to handle its fish's initial waste and ongoing feeding needs, that's the date we like to predict and inspect in follow ups. Nitrite has zero factoring in any start date analysis it's all about ammonia control in 2021+

I have never ever seen a seneye unit reflect what any titration kit shows, even after tan conversion. In 100% of comparative examples the titration kit causes alarm. a tuned seneye soothes alarm, that’s the disparity in today’s ammonia testing.

*chemists know to be skeptical of everything, seneye has no other testers to digitally proof it as accurate or not but I’d ask this: which tester reports ammonia nh3 levels found on natural reefs, and more accurately portrays what we actually see going on in reef tanks regarding fish health, water clarity, feeding behaviors etc (hallmarks of a cycled tank)

The red sea always reads .2 in our collections, the seneye reports .002 on a real reef tank and then Jon M moved the exact unit to a low surface area QT setup and it moves up to .02, an exacting match to the loss of surface area.


this is why I choose seneye as the best current reflector of cycling reference.

so long before anyone takes time to compare hach digital ammonia readings against seneye, seneye is the one directly reflecting all the context we can see for the readings. cant wait for final proofs on seneye one day.

to heck with Jake Paul, I want to see a seneye vs hach nh3 accuracy fight.
I'm really thinking you are right on about the test being inaccurate. I am at day 3 or 4 now of the ammonia levels not changing at all.
 
AS

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
19,347
Reaction score
15,961
Location
tejas
That’s an assessment of standing wastewater

what about the calibrated trick I posted

his ammonia was standing at eight ppm, worse than yours and then when calibrated as we did, even his api agreed it is cycled and he reef’d instantly with months of follow up

you can change out your waste water and proceed reefing or re test it for proofing using that special approach
 
OP
Steelheader09

Steelheader09

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
354
Location
Maine
That’s an assessment of standing wastewater

what about the calibrated trick I posted

his ammonia was standing at eight ppm, worse than yours and then when calibrated as we did, even his api agreed it is cycled and he reef’d instantly with months of follow up

you can change out your waste water and proceed reefing or re test it for proofing using that special approach
I have not, due to the size of the tank, I don't believe I can feasibly do that large of a change. It takes me a couple days to make that much water. I will however do a good 25-30% change very soon. Maybe that will be enough.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
19,347
Reaction score
15,961
Location
tejas
I truly think it won’t matter the kits will still show the claimed stall. I forgot your tank wasn’t an easy nano to flip :)

also possible: add life it’s not going to die. If it writhes in burning pain of free ammonia that’ll be the very first instance we’ve seen among countless stall trackings. Given the bottle bac plus wait time I expect any test animal to be fine and match what the initial animals are doing among all the fish in cycles we can search/ acting very normal. It’s also ok to wait weeks for test compliance eventually it will register a drop but thats the lag time reporting not the actual free ammonia action. I claim that’s already controlled
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
19,347
Reaction score
15,961
Location
tejas
Just thought of something neat and possibly new for big tanks

what about lifting out many of the rocks and doing the remote test in a bucket of clean water my gosh that solves so many volume issues

rocks into bucket of known clean sw, only take the calibrated initial read when rocks have sat in the clean water a couple hours. That’s pic one, shows the lowest reporting range for the kit in question as a clear baseline starting point from a known zero ammonia condition.


then dose a very small direct amount of free ammonia, take second pic and if it doesn’t register a change right there the tests are off base and lag too much for validity, as we have seen before. But if they register a change then you’ll have something to watch for rebound over nite. Place many rocks in the bucket, a good load of them. I can’t see any reason this modeling would be invalid, we get to see that test express the whole range of proofing this way and it isnt a wastewater assessment it’s a clean run test


*on second pic prep, don’t repeat add ammonia until the test changes as the suspected lag will have you adding enough to drive it up like current wastewater

if a tiny bit of actual free ammonia can’t move up the tester to the .2 level then the test isn’t a good gauge anyway. If it can, then proceed
 
OP
Steelheader09

Steelheader09

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
331
Reaction score
354
Location
Maine
Just thought of something neat and possibly new for big tanks

what about lifting out many of the rocks and doing the remote test in a bucket of clean water my gosh that solves so many volume issues

rocks into bucket of known clean sw, only take the calibrated initial read when rocks have sat in the clean water a couple hours. That’s pic one, shows the lowest reporting range for the kit in question as a clear baseline starting point from a known zero ammonia condition.


then dose a very small direct amount of free ammonia, take second pic and if it doesn’t register a change right there the tests are off base and lag too much for validity, as we have seen before. But if they register a change then you’ll have something to watch for rebound over nite. Place many rocks in the bucket, a good load of them. I can’t see any reason this modeling would be invalid, we get to see that test express the whole range of proofing this way and it isnt a wastewater assessment it’s a clean run test


*on second pic prep, don’t repeat add ammonia until the test changes as the suspected lag will have you adding enough to drive it up like current wastewater

if a tiny bit of actual free ammonia can’t move up the tester to the .2 level then the test isn’t a good gauge anyway. If it can, then proceed
I agree this could be a good test. Unfortunatly for me, all my rocks are glued together.
 

Have you ever grown your own live aquarium food?

  • YES and it was a success (tell us in the thread)

    Votes: 20 31.3%
  • YES but I couldn't sustain it long term

    Votes: 8 12.5%
  • NO, I tried but couldn't

    Votes: 3 4.7%
  • NO, I have never tried

    Votes: 32 50.0%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 1 1.6%
NYOS
Top