Instant Tank Cycle

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
11,575
Reaction score
12,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0


This is to continue the logged examples of visual cycling tanks

where we do not factor stated test levels


we factor sight details from the picture, benthic standouts that always take longer to set in vs cycling bacteria/organisms

specifically, we dont need a DNA analysis or any testing to cycle up a reef, there are visual markers I've been back editing into this thread for two years. Message any entrant to see how things fared long term.

we dont even need the visual markers now, updated cycling science (the free stuff, where we're not bound to retail purchases or test kits or expenditures to know things about a reef) now knows that to set rocks in water and wait 30 days also cycles, its tested on seneye more than once now and API too.

So to reduce the factors I'll need to know over the next two years to keep filling this thread w work, all we need to know is the # of days the tank had water in it. if its 30 or close, you're cycled.


Results from long term thread examples:

-you CAN tell if a reef is cycled in almost all cases by seeing a picture of it. Most reefs we see here, or new reefs to come, will have easily seen biomarkers that indicate the presence of a complete cycle for waste control, and its infallible. We havent lost any new tanks to the method, its totally reliable. I can more accurately diagnose any reef cycle off pics than the api levels provided, and so can you.


-you do NOT have to undergo tedious testing to validate or confirm a cycle, because ALL reefs cycles will complete at max 30 days wait even if you've messed up the initial doses of ammonia, or even withheld it altogether


-The retail industry wants your cash; they make money off you doubting bacteria, water bacteria in water



-The cheapest easiest cycle that cannot fail is the unassisted cycle: add water and rocks to a system, swirl the water 30 days, all natural contaminants fed the system and inoculated it, and you're cycled, and nobody's cycle takes longer than 30 days. Not one example in here needed past 1/3 of that time, and most here collected are total skip cycle transfers.

If we do not have anyone studying updated cycling science rules, retail control and command will take over the hobby and write all the rules for procedure, which will always lead back to a purchase somehow, a doubt, in what water bacteria do in water. here is one of the few proofs we have on the unassisted cycle

isn't it amazing this info is missing from every single cycling article written in reefing?
read MSteven1's posts from this page


also discovered: though we've been trained to doubt cycles/be concerned of stalling/buy reinforcements, its become clear that online there are no examples of a failed cycle. Anyone who put water in a square box completed the cycle. Proof? post up one single example of a failed, incomplete or stalled cycle. You'll be posting an example of a completed cycle but someone using red sea or api test kits. It will never, ever, ever be digital ammonia testing confirming the stall.

we've been given FALSE consequence worry in the hobby, and as a result we buy and click thousands of times to prevent a condition that does not occur. A non cycled tank can't carry delicate marine life, they w die
I agree with a lot of what you say. But - its not entirely factual (IMHO).

Example 1

1. Take a 100 gallon tank.
2. Add Salt/water.
3. Heat/filter
4. wait 30 days
5. Add 5 clown fish

You will likely have no problems (nor would you have problems if you added the 5 clowns on day 1)

1. Take the same tank, water, heat, filtration
2. Wait 30 days
3. Add 5 medium/large tangs.

My guess is that you will have problems with ammonia, etc at day 30. You would most certainly have problems if you added those fish on day 1. If you added 10 tangs you would have more problems, etc etc

In other words, it seems like you're making up a false narrative - that there is a binary event 'cycled' or 'not-cycled'. I do not believe this is the case, as part of it relates to bio load.

This has long been discussed/debated/etc. Back in the days when people took live rock from the ocean - then let it sit in tubs for weeks/months. Still measuring ammonia - and needing to do significant water changes as the 'stuff' inside and outside the rock died.

You have given lots of thread examples - and its appreciated. But - besides 'wanting to make money' - the reasons for cycling protocols are based on need. I agree totally with your general premise that many people over-obsess about this task. I also agree with you that its certainly possible to take a tank, rock, add some fritzyme and fish on the same day - without measuring a single parameter.
 
AS

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
Well test it then. part of owning a seneye is you dont have to risk fish kills to truly know those boundaries. those are logical options above thanks for posting. You'd be good with a seneye and how about @Seneye corp start sending out some free meters to cycle inspectors here.

the interplay with dilution on the five clown setup will be an interesting meter for any final result, truly i wonder what's the lowest gallonage they could reasonably be tested in / their waste equivalent

Neon Rabbit is doing some nice upper end seneye testing on unassisted cycles currently, Ill link them.



The main point of this thread among the many was the handy trick of benthic clue cycling/visual pic confirming a ready tank. The specific challenge was to see if we can consistently call a cycle closed by seeing pics

not in all cases, but in cases where new benthic growth is apparent, we're at 100% rate so far
 
Last edited:

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
11,575
Reaction score
12,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Well test it then. part of owning a seneye is you dont have to risk fish kills to truly know those boundaries. those are logical options above thanks for posting. You'd be good with a seneye and how about @Seneye corp start sending out some free meters to cycle inspectors here.
Except one of your points was you don't need to 'buy stuff', its just done. so - no I don't need a Seneye - right? The point is you're implying that somehow 'the tests are already done'. The examples I have given have been tested and done for decades. I don't have multiple tanks, nor any desire to 'prove/test' what I already know (and 99 percent of people here know as well). Common sense suggests that at some point, adding too many fish at one time to a tank with a given filtration level will not work. Thus, (my point) - cycling is not a binary event.
 

taricha

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,511
Reaction score
4,596
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
-The cheapest easiest cycle that cannot fail is the unassisted cycle: add water and rocks to a system, swirl the water 30 days, all natural contaminants fed the system and inoculated it, and you're cycled, and nobody's cycle takes longer than 30 days. Not one example in here needed past 1/3 of that time, and most here collected are total skip cycle transfers.

Here's a counterexample from aquabiomics article

no2-and-no3.jpg


A simple dry rock and sand tank with saltwater added circulated for 40 days with no ability to consume ammonia or nitrify ammonia to NO2 or NO3.
Being in circulating saltwater for 30 days isn't enough. There must be actual live bacteria at some point.

If you modify it to "Get the system wet with saltwater, have some material from any other SW system, or verified live bottle bacteria, and any food input - in 30 days it's cycled without testing.".. then I'd agree, even a single drop of my tank water when given sterile food, showed ammonia oxidation to NO2 by day 30.
At the very least, I'd have no counterexamples.

Also I have gotten a bottle or two of dead nitrifying bacteria One and Only that could do nothing. Must've gotten frozen - bought them in the winter. I bet if I added one of those to a dry rock system, they wouldn't do anything by day 40 either. But I haven't actually done that test.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
Those are the two data lines we dont factor however, nitrite and nitrate

where is his ammonia line charting

look how nitrate rose for him right on the day a cycling chart says ammonia will drop. Does that factor

also added, nobody can post an example of a thread where at thirty days unassisted a system couldnt carry a bioload, here’s two that says they can:


MSteven1 posts

and Neons, here

ps

aquabiomics being Eli from this thread in earlier pages is awesome irony


We back edited like fifty examples to counter Eli’s first claim, now two on his aquabiomics claim plus more coming. I’ll solicit more unassisted cycle works to verify patterning

the reason we dont factor nitrite or nitrate in my cycles is because its not needed to know them in order to set 100% reliable start dates for bioload carry, all our cycles are logged for patterning. our cycles pride themselves on never knowing nitrite at any phase in the entire reefing process nor considering it ever, even one time. Given that Eli's nitrite data doesnt match a cycling chart, that makes me suspect of his post not the 50+ year old charts.
 
Last edited:
Orphek OR3 reef aquarium LED lighting

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
I am now completely unable to ascertain motivation for Eli's posting above, its so polar opposite from rolls of logs we post.


perhaps nitrite matters to him in cycle umpiring


MSteven proves otherwise about self-establishment with a very basic setup in a brute can. the writing above hints that a common cycling chart isn't accurate, I bet this leads to a purchase implication or a need for supplementation somehow.

thats why I like this thread, there's a constant push/pull between bacteria salespersons and online nerd patterns, its a total conflict of findings in fact.

salespersons: you need my product to reef.

online nerds: here's fifty links where we did it free and also a fun challenge to find one single cycle we ever deemed ready that wasn't, message anyone for follow up.

counterpoint data is what drives us, we want more. it causes others to get motivated to setup bucket test reefs to see their own discoveries and those collective works are the free gold, post anything pro or con that is pertinent to cycling in any way.
 
Last edited:

Lasse

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
24,360
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
This is similar with the old thought that the world is flat because 100 of jesuits paper state that it is flat because it looks like that when we look at the horizont. Your eyes = seneye ammonia tester

Sincerely Lasse
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
To help understand the thread direction, a summary of last two years:

- at the start i mentioned any system with obvious attached benthic growth, coralline or algae or diatoms or cyano, can be visually identified as cycled without testing and we can rely on that permanently to name the start date for carrying bioload. Eli said that's not possible, we've linked proof where any example can be sent a message and then you post their follow up here and we see if the umpire date was wrong

-The last few posts detract from this pattern by making an opposite claim without using any one example listed in this post in its review, the work logged is not acknowledged though its there for the clicking. If someone could find an unhappy participant from my cycling threads we'd have something to work with.


-We discussed alongside visual benthic cycling how any set of rocks submerged for a month is ready, natural and free provisions made the cycle done by a known timeline, this matches all cycling charts that run the hobby and the first guy to doubt still doubts that too even though two new links have been provided and we can send a message to the poster to ask for updates to see if we made the wrong call


-The only evidence for an incomplete cycle at one month is from a company that sells bacterial boosters and tests but not from a forum thread, where we can send a message to the poster to inspect follow ups, meaning i provide that standard in every test here but I just can't use it to verify counters against my claims lol ok


- we determined nitrite doesn't matter in reefing whatsoever, in defining acceptable ethical start dates.

Message any entrant here below for proof

 
Last edited:

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
Yet another thread using strictly visual benthic verifying cycling, no testing, skeptic can message any entrant and report back findings to us, how much nitrite did we need to know here:


These patterns are undeniable. I expect nothing like this degree of work in future counter posts here but I formally predict by page 30 here any entrant logged will have enjoyed their exacting start date provided and if asked, they'll tell you
 
Last edited:

taricha

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,511
Reaction score
4,596
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Those are the two data lines we dont factor however, nitrite and nitrate

where is his ammonia line charting

ammonia-depletion.jpeg


It was a little further up the page :)

"Figure 8. A series of measurements during the final week of the experiment, showing consumption of ammonia. Each symbol represents the average of duplicate tanks."

Dry rock tanks circulating in saltwater for 40 days couldn't process any appreciable ammonia, not even a 0.1 ppm in 6 days, nor could they produce NO2 or NO3. They really weren't cycled. Bacteria are required. :p
 
Reef Chasers Aquaculture

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
Ok gotcha. Well his data looks incorrect


Did the ones I posted in counter also look incorrect? He gets to rewrite a cycling chart used to cycle countless tanks even after telling us here in early pages we can't tell if rocks are cycled by looking at them? Seems like two strikes, not two wins for Eli

What I'd like to see: a single example from a reef tank thread that couldn't carry its intended starting bioload, they died upon addition or displayed such behavior we can easily see distress. His data won't look like it always aligns to make a sale with that contextual inclusion
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
24,360
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Some fact - The nitrification cycle NH4/NH3 -> NO2 -> NO3 It is two different microorganism groups for each step.

NH4/NH3 is a complex and the percentage of each species is pH depended - as an example - if total ammonia (NH4/NH3) is 1 ppm at pH 8 - NH4 is 0.95 ppm and NH3 is 0.05 ppm. Most drop test for hobby use measure total ammonia (NH4/NH3). Seneye measure only NH3. Total ammonia is interesting according nitrification NH3 is interesting according toxicity because it is the only one of these two (NH4 and NH3) that is toxic. seneye can be used to warn against toxic levels of NH3 but not as a tool to investigate the nitrification rate because it is only showing around 5 % of the total ammonia content. There is also not any figures of Seneyes detection limits and its accuracy.

Most hobby test of total ammonia (NH4/NH3) is worthless - they show wrong figures

Nitrite tests is one of the more reliable drop test that exist and there is very few compounds that interfere with the readings

Nitrate test (most of them) is very sensitive for even low levels of nitrite in the sample. This is the reason why many report high nitrate levels after a couple of days in a new aquarium and a fast decline after two to three weeks. It is not a sign of working denitrification as many think - instead it is a sign that show that nitrification is working flawless because there is no accumulation of the intermediate substance nitrite (in the process)

IMO - the best way to understand if the nitrification process is cycled or not is to measure the NO2 concentration. When it decline from a top - the cycle is done.

It is the only method that can show if the second step in the process have started to work or not. It is true that NO2 normally is not toxic for organisms using gills (but it is unsure if it is toxic or not for animals like corals) but a good working nitrification cycle is one of the cornerstones of a well-functioning bacterial system

One other trick for a good start is to follow the steps in this article - IME you do not need to measure at all in this case.

To respond to all other Brandon Sayings in his last posts is meaningless - What I am saying is the experiences and knowledge from the aquarium hobby the last 50 years - both in fresh water and salt water. Not to mention all work done with waste water treatment. I´m also agree with Eli in his article refereed by Taricha

One comment - in the last thread you refer to - all examples of success include living rocks or sand - no doubt that this will work - you seed your system with the nitrification bacteria they have - your task will only be to have the grow to the amount it is needed for your load - in Elis example - it was no bacteria added at all - like you start with clean dry sand and dry rock. You need to seed with nitrifying organisms, from soil, from living sand, from living rock, from a bottle or whatever but you need to seed with them.

When I read your claims - I can´t stop my self to think about Don Quixote fight against windmills

Sincerely Lasse
 

Lasse

7500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
8,406
Reaction score
24,360
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Ok gotcha. Well his data looks incorrect
As I get it - he did not use seneye - he use scientific equipment for analyzing NH3/NH4, NO2 and NO3.

And funny - you criticize me for no evidences of what I´m saying - when some other show these evidences (I have measured the same thing thousand times) - data is incorrect....................
Sincerely Lasse
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
11,575
Reaction score
12,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Those are the two data lines we dont factor however, nitrite and nitrate

where is his ammonia line charting

look how nitrate rose for him right on the day a cycling chart says ammonia will drop. Does that factor

also added, nobody can post an example of a thread where at thirty days unassisted a system couldnt carry a bioload, here’s two that says they can:


MSteven1 posts

and Neons, here

ps

aquabiomics being Eli from this thread in earlier pages is awesome irony


We back edited like fifty examples to counter Eli’s first claim, now two on his aquabiomics claim plus more coming. I’ll solicit more unassisted cycle works to verify patterning

the reason we dont factor nitrite or nitrate in my cycles is because its not needed to know them in order to set 100% reliable start dates for bioload carry, all our cycles are logged for patterning. our cycles pride themselves on never knowing nitrite at any phase in the entire reefing process nor considering it ever, even one time. Given that Eli's nitrite data doesnt match a cycling chart, that makes me suspect of his post not the 50+ year old charts.
The difference (to me) between Aquabiomics study and your 'multiple threads', is that it seems like you're talking 'apples and oranges'.

BUT - if there is no nitrite, by definition there was no ammonia, unless a totally different pathway was at play - suggesting that your thesis is potentially incorrect.

Scientifically, it does not make sense that you can take a sterile (everything) tank - as he did - and expect a cycled tank at 30 days. At least not in the same manner you would see if you added live rock from another tank to a 'new tank'.

As above, I think your premise and Aquabiomics study are comparing apples to oranges - and are 'proving' different things entirely.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
No, he omitted using any actual threads unconnected to his sales machine that we can message for independent proofing.


I provided two links showing that no feed or dosing of bac was required to bring up a dry system in 30 days. Ignore them if you want, won't change what we proof here using real tanks. Msteven1 earned very normal ammonia control on day sixty as an additional support.
 
Last edited:
Top Shelf Aquatics

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
I honestly don't mind if you continue that same standard, we're just going to turn out cycle over cycle here anyway


Using other people's aquariums with updates is our mode because accountability comes from it. The more you post written testimony that it won't work, the more the last four pages stand out and the four more coming
 
Last edited:

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
11,575
Reaction score
12,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Ok gotcha. Well his data looks incorrect


Did the ones I posted in counter also look incorrect? He gets to rewrite a cycling chart used to cycle countless tanks even after telling us here in early pages we can't tell if rocks are cycled by looking at them? Seems like two strikes, not two wins for Eli

What I'd like to see: a single example from a reef tank thread that couldn't carry its intended starting bioload, they died upon addition or displayed such behavior we can easily see distress. His data won't look like it always aligns to make a sale with that contextual inclusion
No offense - to me none of the questions your asking make sense (reading the English language). It is completely unclear what you're asking for - or why?

I think Aquabiomics graphs looked correct. I have not seen any thread you've posted where someone has taken a completely sterile tank, waited 30 days, and then added 'a bioload' (whatever that means).

It is totally obvious to me that you can cycle even with fish in the tank starting at day 0 - that has been done for YEARS. You could not start a cycle with 50 fish at day 0 and have many survivors. (But you would probably have a cycled tank).

If you add fish and bacteria on day 0, you can have a working tank on day 1 - with no risk. I don't need to look at 100 threads to prove that - I can look at the instructions on many different kinds of bacterial products. I'm not sure why anyone would wait for 30 days when they can add fish on day 1.

PS - part of what is confusing - @brandon429 is that you tend not to quote which post/part of a post you're responding to. So it makes the whole conversation practically un-understandable - IMHO
 

NeonRabbit221B

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
2,894
Reaction score
5,363
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Harrisonburg, Va
ammonia-depletion.jpeg


It was a little further up the page :)

"Figure 8. A series of measurements during the final week of the experiment, showing consumption of ammonia. Each symbol represents the average of duplicate tanks."

Dry rock tanks circulating in saltwater for 40 days couldn't process any appreciable ammonia, not even a 0.1 ppm in 6 days, nor could they produce NO2 or NO3. They really weren't cycled. Bacteria are required. :p
I literally did this a month ago and saw 20% reduction in free ammonia in 24 hours on day 27. Can you link me to original article? I saw what I saw but would be interested in reading more about it. I would rather not get drawn into the personal attacks or anything just want to read the article.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
20,440
Reaction score
16,848
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
11,575
Reaction score
12,292
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
To help understand the thread direction, a summary of last two years:

- at the start i mentioned any system with obvious attached benthic growth, coralline or algae or diatoms or cyano, can be visually identified as cycled without testing and we can rely on that permanently to name the start date for carrying bioload. Eli said that's not possible, we've linked proof where any example can be sent a message and then you post their follow up here and we see if the umpire date was wrong

-The last few posts detract from this pattern by making an opposite claim without using any one example listed in this post in its review, the work logged is not acknowledged though its there for the clicking. If someone could find an unhappy participant from my cycling threads we'd have something to work with.


-We discussed alongside visual benthic cycling how any set of rocks submerged for a month is ready, natural and free provisions made the cycle done by a known timeline, this matches all cycling charts that run the hobby and the first guy to doubt still doubts that too even though two new links have been provided and we can send a message to the poster to ask for updates to see if we made the wrong call


-The only evidence for an incomplete cycle at one month is from a company that sells bacterial boosters and tests but not from a forum thread, where we can send a message to the poster to inspect follow ups, meaning i provide that standard in every test here but I just can't use it to verify counters against my claims lol ok


- we determined nitrite doesn't matter in reefing whatsoever, in defining acceptable ethical start dates.

Message any entrant here below for proof

In Lasses thread stating nitrite -is- required in reefing I've countered it solidly in his thread to the point we stopped discussing the issue altogether but he'll hold firm. In his thread no failed cycles are linked, merely swaths of written biochemistry are posted but no actual tanks we can message an entrant and see if their fish died. To the counter, in his thread, i linked threads where nitrite- positive starts were logged and all fish are happy. Nitrite only matters in early nitrate testing, but I don't use either param to cycle any reef and any reef I've cycled has a thread where the entrant can be messaged months later, to see if we called it wrong or right.


- when dealing in cycling reefs an account must be made between opposing data: if some formal study such as Aquabiomic's above directly goes against the pattern of a hundred work thread proofs, someone's claim is off and needs refining. I'm missing such an account here; the logged works are ignored by skeptics but never never never never replaced with their own work using others tanks. it's almost like no linked thread was clicked and read here at all, a critic isn't interested in asking participants how their assessment turned out they only want to see papers on the matter.

- all of Lasse's examples come from him retelling personal experience, there's not one link of an actual outbound reef tank cycle we can see for his claims. By never involving other people's reefs in his claimed proofs, accountability drops to zero, there's nobody we can message from his claims that nitrite matters in reef tank cycling to see if they had consequence from ignoring it the whole time. Nitrite matters because Lasse says so, not because he has one single link where a bioload couldn't be carried when the ammonia line from a cycling chart says it could be carried.


Lasse the longer you go omitting actual work threads in cycling discussions the farther apart we'll drift on today's cycling rules.

The only data I want comes from folks who don't sell retail products and comes from tank cyclers who will give honest feedback on procedure when asked

You keep providing critique saying our methods can't work, and we'll keep providing links where anyone can message the thread writer to hold the umpiring accountable. You should dislike seneye; logged seneye studies show opposite findings from your personal experiences that likely stings
Are you sure you're actually reading what people are saying? I don't believe that ANYONE things that looking at a tank and seeing healthy thriving organisms suggest a 'cycled tank' whether its on day 1 day 4 or day 30. It seems like you are trying to defend theory that everyone already agrees with? If fish are swimming around in a tank - there is enough 'dilution' (i.e. volume of water/number of fish) or enough nitrification to detoxify their waste.

IMHO, the place where people run into problems is placing too many fish into a tank that is not ready for that bioload. I do not believe your premise (if I'm understanding it correctly) - that suggests that at 30 days, one can add an unlimited number of fish.

For example, you could put 100 small clownfish into a saltwater filled swimming pool on day 0 - and they would likely do fine. You couldn't do that in a 50 gallon tank on 'day 0' (Or likely on day 30). Bacteria cannot grow without 'food'
 

How long does it take to you to get an inch of acropora growth? (on average)

  • A couple of weeks or less

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Up to 1 month

    Votes: 7 8.4%
  • Up to 2 months

    Votes: 7 8.4%
  • Up to 3 months

    Votes: 18 21.7%
  • Up to 6 months

    Votes: 17 20.5%
  • Up to 12 months

    Votes: 7 8.4%
  • 12+ Months

    Votes: 3 3.6%
  • I can't grow acropora

    Votes: 20 24.1%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 4 4.8%
RED SEA
Top