Is anyone with a mindstream or seneye ammonia reader willing to co-fund a cycling experiment with me

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Team Im wanting to offer to buy someone some cycling bacteria and two clownfish to track the effects of fish-in cycling.

we want to see if it burns fish or not

fish in cycling is absolutely on -fire taking off, can't be debate its a million dollar industry

and nobody has bothered to spot check it

we want to see if ammonia ever climbs to ld50 levels during fish in cycles, start with biospira brand then we'll work up. Ill pay pal you after we reach agreements.

Hoping to find someone interested in forwarding cycling science who already has an empty nano reef, doesnt mind setting up a test run, and can provide their own wet sand and dry rock/which comprise about 75% of all fish-in cycle threads (the rest are live rock transfer cycles which are true skip cycles, already verified by multiple seneyes)


Ill buy bottle bac and fish and you set up a seneye or mindstream tracking to see if free ammonia ever reaches in the tenths ppm. we can make reef article gold off this data. keep the fish when done and do something fun with them. Im 100% not interested in non seneye/ non mindstream data unless its some calibrated lab gear etc off scholar. not accepting api, red sea, salifert etc
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
consider this

each forum has its self appointed cycling umpires, its how we handle free expression.

all evaluations come from api, red sea, or salifert ammonia to the tune of 99% and those vary wildly in subjective reporting and accuracy tank to tank

we literally have no meter to go from, to give accurate feedback about a procedure that garners a million bucks a year in our hobby.

we pay up without measuring? what kind of chemists allow that we certainly can not

we already know bottle bac work, Dr Reef has shut the door on that. shut. they adhere to rocks and become unable to be stopped by a full water change within about a week of dosing, any strain (meant for cycling)

but how fast within that timeframe can they convert free ammonia? Did this anemone appear burnt> did the fish act burned?


we simply must know what the ammonia levels are during all phases of that action.

it is soon to replace all forms of timed, slow approach cycles.

You can't get this info on any reef board and I'll bet nobody has it listed on scholar; I think its that rare to have seneye call the outcome.
 
Last edited:

Dan_P

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
6,994
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
consider this

each forum has its self appointed cycling umpires, its how we handle free expression.

all evaluations come from api, red sea, or salifert ammonia to the tune of 99% and those vary wildly in subjective reporting and accuracy tank to tank

we literally have no meter to go from, to give accurate feedback about a procedure that garners a million bucks a year in our hobby.

we pay up without measuring? what kind of chemists allow that we certainly can not

we already know bottle bac work, Dr Reef has shut the door on that. shut. they adhere to rocks and become unable to be stopped by a full water change within about a week of dosing, any strain (meant for cycling)

but how fast within that timeframe can they convert free ammonia? Did this anemone appear burnt> did the fish act burned?


we simply must know what the ammonia levels are during all phases of that action.

it is soon to replace all forms of timed, slow approach cycles.

You can't get this info on any reef board and I'll bet nobody has it listed on scholar; I think its that rare to have seneye call the outcome.

An idea.

A controlled experiment might be in order. Maybe we can use a doser instead of a fish. @taricha and I have modified the API test to detect total ammonia to below 0.05 ppm. Not sure about the volume of the test. 1 gallon? 10 gallon? Light no light? Temperature? Bare bottom or new aragonite sand? Aragonite rock needed?
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
We need the fish to correlate behaviors observed to max readings

if he’s harmed then the time spent convincing others not to do fish in cycles will save thousands more fish, that’s my rationale for it anyway


I’d want wet pack caribsea sand and dry rock, a perfect view into all these fish in cycles. Only seneye will show us hundredths or thousandths ppm we need that accuracy in a world of pure api data


api alongside seneye is ok, but only a digital measure gives us new input

one of my claims here in support of bottle bac is that normal acting fish can indeed be tied into an ammonia reading, that there is none in the tenths ppm (or the fish dies and darts around and struggles to breathe, things we never see in fish-in cycle posts while everyone decries harm done to the fish)

we might be able to one day see if even a rise into the thousandths ppm is possible.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thank you for the bump. The sales machine that produces fish- in cycling additives is either onto something amazing or they're selling harm to fish

Ammonia doesn't permit a middle ground

Non seneye measures have trained us all to associate free ammonia with no tank consequences, that's incorrect its highly consequential.

kidney failure/inability to process free ammonia also has profound consequence in human and veterinary medicine, ammonia always causes obvious signs when its burning a living organism

an aquarium that cannot keep ammonia at safe levels via active surface area will display its own form of kidney failure and we can see it without anyone's test kit.


Though I rail against any form of stalled cycle claims causing people to buy more bacteria, in the case of fish in cycling I think they're onto something that works.
 
Last edited:

taricha

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
6,459
Reaction score
9,952
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Run it via Ammonia doser as Dan said first. See what the Ammonia ( and pH) vs time profile looks like - then decide if it can be run with fish.
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
thats reasonable I see what you guys mean. you can exclude a clearly fatal lack of control and not harm anything.
 

35ppt

Large Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
2,006
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Redacted
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I didnt think a group of aquarists would jump on fish experiments but in the end we're advocating thousands of fish-in starts by never knowing how it exactly works to be able to speak against or for it with command. Excluding a fish is excluding the final tie in for something that is about to occur exponentially in this hobby.

if no fish, we have to pick arbitrary unsubstantiated max limits for free ammonia allowance, a guess.


Fish-in cycling will eventually replace or vastly outnumber all forms of wait cycling, including liquid bac first...to gain a measure on this now is prudent. The labs who sell the bottle bac already have, and its proprietary, Ill bet a dollar.


Since we cannot locate the actual experiment from somewhere else, someone can go underground w me/pm and we'll run it there. we can follow the directions advised for the bottle, then its not an imprudent test. *after Dan's idea of pre verification

The current theory I can tell still is that fish will be harmed in the experiment

ya'll are making bac weak again in assumption/bet :)

bacteria keep breaking all the conventional restrictions we put on them. and now we're thinking aquatic bacteria grown selective culture packed in water transferred to more water won't do its job.
 
Last edited:

Rick Mathew

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
4,735
Location
North Central Florida
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I didnt think a group of aquarists would jump on fish experiments but in the end we're advocating thousands of fish-in starts by never knowing how it exactly works to be able to speak against or for it with command. Excluding a fish is excluding the final tie in for something that is about to occur exponentially in this hobby.

if no fish, we have to pick arbitrary unsubstantiated max limits for free ammonia allowance, a guess.


Fish-in cycling will eventually replace or vastly outnumber all forms of wait cycling, including liquid bac first...to gain a measure on this now is prudent. The labs who sell the bottle bac already have, and its proprietary, Ill bet a dollar.


Since we cannot locate the actual experiment from somewhere else, someone can go underground w me/pm and we'll run it there. we can follow the directions advised for the bottle, then its not an imprudent test. *after Dan's idea of pre verification

The current theory I can tell still is that fish will be harmed in the experiment

ya'll are making bac weak again in assumption/bet :)

bacteria keep breaking all the conventional restrictions we put on them. and now we're thinking aquatic bacteria grown selective culture packed in water transferred to more water won't do its job.

Been following along...Here is a link to an interesting article that might have some insights...You may have already seen it



rick
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
No I had not seen that, so helpful thank you

they do have some tolerance measures to draw from for various fish


and described behavior associated with being burned

Eddy, 1993, 1994; Eddy, 1999), leading to hyper-excitability and changes in
behaviour, followed by convulsions and death. Increased ammonia levels in the
water resulted in impairment of swimming performance (Beaumont et al., 1995a,
b), reduced feeding and slower growth
 

taricha

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
6,459
Reaction score
9,952
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The above paper comes up with a median lethal concentration of free ammonia as 0.09 for sensitive species.
Looking for a lower benchmark to use for stress/harm rather than lethality. This paper from a Canadian water quality talks about levels that would show some effect, not just lethal ones.
"Environment Canada’s (1999) aquatic community ecological risk criteria on the impact of ammonia at the community level of both invertebrates and fish indicated that 5% of the species in an aquatic community would exhibit a 20% reduction in growth or reproduction at an un-ionized ammonia concentration of 0.041 mg/L.
...
The lower 95% prediction limit is 0.019 mg/L...the lower 95% prediction limit will be set as the guideline."
Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines[pdf]

So if it's shown through Ammonia and pH measures that 0.02ppm NH3 is never reached, then you could plausibly say nothing is being harmed by this.
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
truly a standout pattern that data reinforces

nobody that reads .25 api ammonia among normal rocks and sand and normal fish behavior for days is getting the right reading, per that research the fish would have to be dead. That snippet alone troubleshoots about twenty years of online data regarding free ammonia in reef tanks that’s for sure.

for a reef tank with fish, rocks and sand to be in the tenths ppm free ammonia sustained, and overcome eons of adapted conversion rates afforded by surface area + moving water, a reef has to be truly messed up. Nothing will be acting normal.

-this is a strike against the faction that claims fish-in cycling harms clownfish. If the ammonia readings were compounding beyond hundredths, harm is to be expected and would be seen. and now we must consider the thousands of fish- in cycles taking place, posting pics of happy fish. Nobody is one-offing the fish-in cycle. Pulling it off is the norm.


clearly that .0x hundredths measure above sets a measurement baseline where no fish have to be tried. it is the point we can expect visual confirmation from the tank itself, no test kit needed

ok we’re 99% streamlined, saving me from buying two test clownfish. I’ll buy bottle bac and the liquid cycling ammonia and some sand and some dry rocks for the setup, if someone can wield the seneye.
 
Last edited:

FEED ME ZOAS

Eater of Zoas
View Badges
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
133
Reaction score
189
Location
Knoxville
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
truly a standout pattern that data reinforces

nobody that reads .25 api ammonia among normal rocks and sand and normal fish behavior for days is getting the right reading, per that research the fish would have to be dead. That snippet alone troubleshoots about twenty years of online data regarding free ammonia in reef tanks that’s for sure.

for a reef tank with fish, rocks and sand to be in the tenths ppm free ammonia sustained, and overcome eons of adapted conversion rates afforded by surface area + moving water, a reef has to be truly messed up. Nothing will be acting normal.

-this is a strike against the faction that claims fish-in cycling harms clownfish. If the ammonia readings were compounding beyond hundredths, harm is to be expected and would be seen. and now we must consider the thousands of fish- in cycles taking place, posting pics of happy fish. Nobody is one-offing the fish-in cycle. Pulling it off is the norm.


clearly that .0x hundredths measure above sets a measurement baseline where no fish have to be tried. it is the point we can expect visual confirmation from the tank itself, no test kit needed

ok we’re 99% streamlined, saving me from buying two test clownfish. I’ll buy bottle bac and the liquid cycling ammonia and some sand and some dry rocks for the setup, if someone can wield the seneye.

Bump. With the potentially questionable accuracy of the seneye unit and potential inconsistencies between individual units this would likely need to be tested multiple times with different units to be proven meaningful, no? I guess you could maybe do it all in one tank with multiple units at the same time. I don't really see that affecting the validity of the data as you are then guaranteeing they are all taking readings off the same sample, but this would then need to be done multiple times to show repeatability. Maybe I'm overcomplicating things though and a bit off track from your intentions.

I'm very interested to see if anything comes out of this, and if I happen to come into possession of a seneye sometime soon I'll be sure let you know!
 

CoralClasher

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
902
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ok Brandon I’m up for this experiment. Right now I have a lawnmower in QT with copper. He will be ready next Friday. I want to setup a invert QT anyway. I will use him for this experiment and if I see anything bad he will be ready for my DT. My Seneye is working properly because I have watched the ammonia creep up on this QT.

For the experiment I have a 20 gallon tank with a hang on the back filter. I have four rocks that have been dry for a year now, new crushed coral and will rinse clear. Should I prep the rocks at all? Should I get more rocks?
EC092892-6884-480C-B784-B81E40004942.jpeg
431AC5ED-7F80-4212-B415-69983D4C14C6.jpeg
1D66BA3B-681F-4738-B8A4-AA33C0D2E487.jpeg
F59E3A59-71DF-4863-8F17-AD76140A1F7C.jpeg
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,438
Reaction score
23,542
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
that seems already in motion! nice work Jon for sure. the main aim was to see if bottle bac from any brand they commonly use as fish-in would allow for controlled safe ammonia

the rocks you have are plenty of surface area, look clean, should be fine. what kind of bottle bac are we using to test carry ability

*one small detail, copper might interfere with nitrification am not sure. w have to read up on it

but we could learn about the ability of bottle bac well before the copper~
 

CoralClasher

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
1,572
Reaction score
902
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
that seems already in motion! nice work Jon for sure. the main aim was to see if bottle bac from any brand they commonly use as fish-in would allow for controlled safe ammonia

the rocks you have are plenty of surface area, look clean, should be fine. what kind of bottle bac are we using to test carry ability

*one small detail, copper might interfere with nitrification am not sure. w have to read up on it

but we could learn about the ability of bottle bac well before the copper~
Well I guess I have two experiments going on. The rocks and experiment tank is still dry. The subject is in a ten gallon QT right now with copper. The only bacteria I used for this QT was the plastic biological filter soaked in DT sump for 30 days. The “dry start” will start after my copper treatment.
 

Aquatic acrobat in your aquarium: Have you ever kept an eel?

  • I currently keep an eel in my tank.

    Votes: 29 14.8%
  • I have kept an eel in my tank in the past.

    Votes: 33 16.8%
  • I have not kept an eel in my tank, but I hope to in the future.

    Votes: 35 17.9%
  • I have no plans to keep an eel.

    Votes: 96 49.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 3 1.5%
Back
Top