Maturing without Livestock?

PlasticOcean

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
36
Reaction score
18
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The question to all you experienced reefers out there is how long a tank can mature with phantom feeding and no livestock?

The reason - I began a cycle a week ago and everything is going well. But I've recently felt the need to cut back on spending for a number of reasons (including the huge startup cost and a hefty deposit to my landlord). To be clear, I didn't irresponsibly start the tank - I am aware it is an expensive hobby and can handle necessary purchases. But I'm hoping to clamp down on spending for a while, out of caution (freelancer).

So I'm wondering, how long can my tank go (post-cycle) without any livestock (this includes CUC) to speak of? Would phantom feeding be enough to keep the nitrifying bacteria happy for another 30 days or so - post-cycle?

An added element to the Q is whether I can get by for a month or so without adding a light? Was thinking I could introduce window light after nitrites and ammonia read zero for a week. Diffuse, nothing blasting the tank but enough to allow the algae blooms to start.

What are your thoughts on this approach and if possible, is there anything I should look out for? Thanks in advance for your help!
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You cannot starve a cycle when it remains wet, they self feed.


we have complete cycles that only circulated rocks in water for three months, no feed no bac, and the system self cycled. That a cycle can starve has been plainly made up and circulated in forums two decades or more, it’s not the case. Wet in a home means bacteria have been dosed, and fed by the minute. Your current levels of organics are vastly more than needed even if you did not feed again for six years, when tested the rocks will show total ammonia control and thankfully in six years, all of us will be using digital ammonia evals.


hey funny prediction: what if api releases the most popular tester on the digital front and on all reefs it still reads .25 in 2027 that’d be hilarious, and ironic.
 
Upvote 0

MaxTremors

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
6,213
Location
Boise
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
You cannot starve a cycle when it remains wet, they self feed.


we have complete cycles that only circulated rocks in water for three months, no feed no bac, and the system self cycled. That a cycle can starve has been plainly made up and circulated in forums two decades or more, it’s not the case. Wet in a home means bacteria have been dosed, and fed by the minute. Your current levels of organics are vastly more than needed even if you did not feed again for six years, when tested the rocks will show total ammonia control and thankfully in six years, all of us will be using digital ammonia evals.


hey funny prediction: what if api releases the most popular tester on the digital front and on all reefs it still reads .25 in 2027 that’d be hilarious, and ironic.
This is correct, though a little misleading. The bacteria do not ‘self feed’, they go dormant when there is no food source or if conditions are unfavorable. The population will dwindle over time, but when a food source is made available again, it takes around 48 hours for the bacteria to ‘wake up’ and start metabolizing again. I don’t know what percentage of the bacteria you can expect to survive over a certain period of time, but in any case it’s certainly not 100%. You’re right that they can survive 6 years, it’s hypothesized that some bacteria can lay dormant for 100,000 years. But the insinuation that you can starve out the bacteria in your tank and then months or years later the bacteria will be productive enough to immediately handle even a moderate bioload isn’t totally accurate. It would basically be like a new tank that you added bottled bacteria to, it’s going to take a few days for the bacteria to start processing ammonia and for them to reproduce to the point that they can handle a decent bioload. And this is assuming that during the time the bacteria were dormant, that besides the lack of a food source, all other conditions remained stable or ideal. If I were needing to leave a tank without any livestock and wanted to maintain strong biological filtration, I would just maintain and continue to ghost feed the tank.

 
Upvote 0

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
That’s not true, and given the prior links I’ve given you (receiving none back from reef tanks, you grab proofs that are out of context to a reef tank) it won’t do any good to re post the links you ignore legitimate science.



You have no tracking for work done in others reefs we can read, same as last time. It’s why you list links not from reef tank cycles.

Ill send proof of the self cycle to the op via chat. A cycle cannot be starved, your information is the type we work against in updated cycling threads

again I’ll ask and you won’t deliver: post one reef tank cycle example that went dormant. you won’t be providing the opposite of the link I’m sending him now.



There are only non aquarium non reef tank examples with zero application to a dirty home environment, ie random stuff you pulled off google.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
When I wrote that we tracked an upcycle of a brute full of rocks, open topped, with only water no feed and no bacteria and at ~3 mos it passed immediate api ammonia oxidation testing, that was because we kept the link handy for retro analysis. It wasn’t made up


regarding dormancy, there was no delay in control ability, if there was delay you could claim dormancy. Immediately lowering dosed test ammonium chloride can’t be considered dormancy whatsoever, taking three days to lower it could.


when a fully cycled bottle bac cycle lowers ammonia overnite in an assessment test, that doesn’t mean the bacteria were dormant and MSteven1’s unassisted cycle did just that, we just had to wait months for the slow feed and slow inoculation to occur via natural contaminations

if you bought and ran and seneye on a few cycles your input would match tank cycling studies. It’s hard for you to apply your own bottle bac cycle to all ways people want to attain the same ends.

reasons your article has no basis in a home setting, no actual context in reef cycling:

he has already packed in organics into crevices it’s not a sterile start, and he won’t be cleaning them out. That alone is enough reason…we don’t even need to review the others
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MaxTremors

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
6,213
Location
Boise
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
That’s not true, and given the prior links I’ve given you (receiving none back from reef tanks, you grab proofs that are out of context to a reef tank) it won’t do any good to re post the links you ignore legitimate science.



You have no tracking for work done in others reefs we can read, same as last time. It’s why you list links not from reef tank cycles.

Ill send proof of the self cycle to the op via chat. A cycle cannot be starved, your information is the type we work against in updated cycling threads

again I’ll ask and you won’t deliver: post us one reef tank cycle that went dormant. See you next thread…you won’t be providing the opposite of the link I’m sending him now.

ps, can’t use the same excuse from last time as to why you didn’t post a reef tank example, must be a new reason for this thread. Anyone can google random microbiology works and try and stick them in reef tank posts.

you will not post one example of a failed or starved reef tank cycle, can I be any clearer on the prediction
Right, all of microbiology and everything we know about how bacteria work just goes right out the window when it comes to reef tanks because you observed over the internet that bacteria ‘self feed’. If you weren’t so arrogant about what you think you know, you might’ve noticed that I was essentially agreeing with you. But you know what, you must be right, every other type of bacteria, regardless of the type or the environment they live in, go dormant when food is scarce, EXCEPT for those in a reef tank, those ‘self feed’ and unlike every other living thing on the planet, they can live indefinitely without a food source without having to stop their metabolism. And we know this because you observed bacteria ‘self feeding’ under a microscope in a controlled study. No?!? You just made that bit up?

It’s pretty audacious to just say that bacteria ‘self feed’ when there is a completely plausible, well-studied explanation for why a biological filter can function after months or even years without a food source. And it’s really kind of a shame, because I think you’re on the right track in a lot of ways with your ‘new cycling science’, but then you make these assertions that are just so unscientific and just absurd that it almost derails the whole thing and all the work you’ve put into it.
 
Upvote 0

QuarantinedCorals

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
398
Reaction score
253
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hello, I have no knowledge of this topic but I had gone through a fallow because I lost almost all of my fish which, that fallow ended up being much longer than I thought it would take. So I had a 75g, lost almost everything, at that point I got lucky and got a killer deal on a 180g. I switched tanks, used my 75 as a qt, fish went into the 75 while coral and inverts went into the 180. So I qt'd all my fish, I planned on waiting 100 days before adding my fish to the 180, 45 days into the qt I bought peppermint shrimp and a few corals, I reset the clock and my fallow ended 90 days after that day. I had no negatives besides my nutrients being 0 in my 180 because there weren't any fish in it, I noticed my tank matured much more when I started adding corals that had bits and pieces of sponge and what not on it. Even with the lights off, I think when the intense lighting from whatever light source you're gonna be running, will cause some sort of ugly stage. Goodluck!
 
Upvote 0

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I had asked for a direct example of cycle starvation in a reef tank, that won't be provided clearly and it wasn't last time I asked either MaxT


What i sent to him was indeed a link of a stack of rocks self cycling in three months, from a reef tank example.

Of course he's going to ghost feed during the wait it's only rare examples we get for folks proving updated cycling science by withholding feed, the groupthink will usually win out over the direct example option.
 
Upvote 0

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Asking you MaxTremors for alternate proof and getting only typed words isn't just for the sake of argument, and establishing an m.o., there's application in this method of self cycling


Groupthink continual ghost feeding packs phosphates over and over into dry start substrate, self cycling doesn't and still attains the same ends: a reef that carries the intended bioload exactly on the date you add the bioload to the fallowed set of materials.

In the example sent to the thread writer, MSteven1's first use of the free unfed cycle was to just api and straight ammonia to prove he was ready, to help us forward new cycling science. It could have easily been a load of fish.


Ramp up time is the variable, not the endpoint ability to filter that's a function of surface area not our initial feeding offers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
OP
OP
PlasticOcean

PlasticOcean

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
36
Reaction score
18
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Hello, I have no knowledge of this topic but I had gone through a fallow because I lost almost all of my fish which, that fallow ended up being much longer than I thought it would take. So I had a 75g, lost almost everything, at that point I got lucky and got a killer deal on a 180g. I switched tanks, used my 75 as a qt, fish went into the 75 while coral and inverts went into the 180. So I qt'd all my fish, I planned on waiting 100 days before adding my fish to the 180, 45 days into the qt I bought peppermint shrimp and a few corals, I reset the clock and my fallow ended 90 days after that day. I had no negatives besides my nutrients being 0 in my 180 because there weren't any fish in it, I noticed my tank matured much more when I started adding corals that had bits and pieces of sponge and what not on it. Even with the lights off, I think when the intense lighting from whatever light source you're gonna be running, will cause some sort of ugly stage. Goodluck!
Thanks for the feedback, Sakosreef. I'm sure you're right about the algae. There will be a second wave when I add serious lighting. Assuming all I can do is introduce that gradually...
 
Upvote 0
OP
OP
PlasticOcean

PlasticOcean

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
36
Reaction score
18
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Right, all of microbiology and everything we know about how bacteria work just goes right out the window when it comes to reef tanks because you observed over the internet that bacteria ‘self feed’. If you weren’t so arrogant about what you think you know, you might’ve noticed that I was essentially agreeing with you. But you know what, you must be right, every other type of bacteria, regardless of the type or the environment they live in, go dormant when food is scarce, EXCEPT for those in a reef tank, those ‘self feed’ and unlike every other living thing on the planet, they can live indefinitely without a food source without having to stop their metabolism. And we know this because you observed bacteria ‘self feeding’ under a microscope in a controlled study. No?!? You just made that bit up?

It’s pretty audacious to just say that bacteria ‘self feed’ when there is a completely plausible, well-studied explanation for why a biological filter can function after months or even years without a food source. And it’s really kind of a shame, because I think you’re on the right track in a lot of ways with your ‘new cycling science’, but then you make these assertions that are just so unscientific and just absurd that it almost derails the whole thing and all the work you’ve put into it.
This is correct, though a little misleading. The bacteria do not ‘self feed’, they go dormant when there is no food source or if conditions are unfavorable. The population will dwindle over time, but when a food source is made available again, it takes around 48 hours for the bacteria to ‘wake up’ and start metabolizing again. I don’t know what percentage of the bacteria you can expect to survive over a certain period of time, but in any case it’s certainly not 100%. You’re right that they can survive 6 years, it’s hypothesized that some bacteria can lay dormant for 100,000 years. But the insinuation that you can starve out the bacteria in your tank and then months or years later the bacteria will be productive enough to immediately handle even a moderate bioload isn’t totally accurate. It would basically be like a new tank that you added bottled bacteria to, it’s going to take a few days for the bacteria to start processing ammonia and for them to reproduce to the point that they can handle a decent bioload. And this is assuming that during the time the bacteria were dormant, that besides the lack of a food source, all other conditions remained stable or ideal. If I were needing to leave a tank without any livestock and wanted to maintain strong biological filtration, I would just maintain and continue to ghost feed the tank.

Thanks for the link and info, MaxTremors. Couldn't think of a reason the bacteria couldn't handle a low nutrient time period but didn't know what else might arise from it. Certainly plan to maintain parameters so that shouldn't be an issue. Cheers
 
Upvote 0

Gedxin

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
2,345
Location
SoCal
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
To speak to the OP's original question: maturing a tank. If you don't add ANY livestock I can say with confidence it will mature at a dramatically reduced rate than if you added coral. Your cycle will be fine (as the arguments above have agreed), but that wasn't really your question. From my research, tanks mature by new biological additions being added to them. If you don't add coral or fish, you're not increasing the biodiversity of your tank.

Your tank will be fine for months, but your 'maturity' will hardly progress.
 
Upvote 0

MaxTremors

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
6,213
Location
Boise
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I had asked for a direct example of cycle starvation in a reef tank, that won't be provided clearly and it wasn't last time I asked either MaxT


What i sent to him was indeed a link of a stack of rocks self cycling in three months, from a reef tank example.

Of course he's going to ghost feed during the wait it's only rare examples we get for folks proving updated cycling science by withholding feed, the groupthink will usually win out over the direct example option.
One example, one that was in an uncovered container doesn’t prove (not even close) that bacteria spontaneously materialize out of thin air (or water, lol) and cycle a tank without a food source (especially when we consider that it is well-studied how marine bacteria and algae spores are carried thousands of miles inland on the wind, when it’s already well-known that dust, household or otherwise, contains plenty of organic material, ie a food source). Again, I think you have done a lot of great work in furthering our collective knowledge of how tanks cycle, but just completely disregarding so much of what we know about how bacteria work, not because it’s incompatible with observations you’ve made, but because you came up with some other explanation (even if it’s not scientifically sound) and your ego won’t allow you to consider that explanation you came up with for something you’ve observed is wrong. You haven’t posted any evidence of bacteria ‘self feeding’, it’s a conclusion you’ve literally just made up. So while I may not have reef tank specific links about bacteria going dormant (though there are countless studies about bacteria going dormant from lack of food, in all kind of environments, that are easy to find), you also don’t have any links or studies showing bacteria ‘self feeding’ in reef tanks or otherwise (there are bacteria autotrophs, but that’s not what we’re talking about here), the threads you’ve linked don’t prove (or really even suggest) that in any way whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0
OP
OP
PlasticOcean

PlasticOcean

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
36
Reaction score
18
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
To speak to the OP's original question: maturing a tank. If you don't add ANY livestock I can say with confidence it will mature at a dramatically reduced rate than if you added coral. Your cycle will be fine (as the arguments above have agreed), but that wasn't really your question. From my research, tanks mature by new biological additions being added to them. If you don't add coral or fish, you're not increasing the biodiversity of your tank.

Your tank will be fine for months, but your 'maturity' will hardly progress.
That's a great point Gedxin, and makes all the sense in the world. Guess it's a good thing I'm resigned to this being a slow process. ;Bored
 
Upvote 0

Danroo

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
504
Reaction score
366
Location
USA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The question to all you experienced reefers out there is how long a tank can mature with phantom feeding and no livestock?

The reason - I began a cycle a week ago and everything is going well. But I've recently felt the need to cut back on spending for a number of reasons (including the huge startup cost and a hefty deposit to my landlord). To be clear, I didn't irresponsibly start the tank - I am aware it is an expensive hobby and can handle necessary purchases. But I'm hoping to clamp down on spending for a while, out of caution (freelancer).

So I'm wondering, how long can my tank go (post-cycle) without any livestock (this includes CUC) to speak of? Would phantom feeding be enough to keep the nitrifying bacteria happy for another 30 days or so - post-cycle?

An added element to the Q is whether I can get by for a month or so without adding a light? Was thinking I could introduce window light after nitrites and ammonia read zero for a week. Diffuse, nothing blasting the tank but enough to allow the algae blooms to start.

What are your thoughts on this approach and if possible, is there anything I should look out for? Thanks in advance for your help!
It’s an easy hobby but not cheap unless you’re just gonna stick with a small tank with 1 or 2 fish with live rock and sand, that might save you money. Oh and RODI water, you can go with tap water but in the long run it’ll create huge algae issues. Your tank should be fine just keep testing regularly to be sure.
 
Upvote 0
OP
OP
PlasticOcean

PlasticOcean

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
May 6, 2021
Messages
36
Reaction score
18
Location
Los Angeles
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
It’s an easy hobby but not cheap unless you’re just gonna stick with a small tank with 1 or 2 fish with live rock and sand, that might save you money. Oh and RODI water, you can go with tap water but in the long run it’ll create huge algae issues. Your tank should be fine just keep testing regularly to be sure.
Thanks for the input. Yea, I set up a proper saltwater mixing station and RODI system before getting anything else. Makes water changes a breeze - even though I've yet to do one ;) Cheers
 
Upvote 0

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There’s more than one experiment Max, where do you think cycle charts come from (the freshwater unassisted cycle time)

they’re fifty years + established, long before the retail notion of you must buy and feed bottled bacteria ran groupthink

cycle charts are specifically unassisted freshwater biofilter timelines. They do not require human feed and dosing, they require # of days and then on the other axis you can solve for ammonia control expectations once a bioload is added.

specifically, we get biofilter control far beyond the level of feed provided in the cycle, opposite of what the group thinks. This is how wet surface area + current works as an amplifier for filter bacteria.

marine unassisted cycles take longer than freshwater due to sourcing, saltwater able filter bac take longer to vector in and establish, and MSteven1 + NeonRabbits chemistry forum seneye studies (2 examples now) show basic timing we can expect.

We are now building the reef tank version of unassisted cycling timelines, you‘re helping tremendously I appreciate your open mindedness.


there aren’t any reef tank examples you’re ever going to link for us of a starved reef cycle for a reason—same as last month when I requested one example from you.

you’re not providing examples of phenomena you claim are very common.


if cycles are as finicky as you say, then among the million cycles logged we will find some initial deaths, wipeouts, or failed fallow tests. Post only one, from any era or online reefing just scan forums and link one.


it’s not just you that can’t link one example of a reef tank starved back to dormancy cycle, I can’t either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

MaxTremors

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
6,213
Location
Boise
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There’s more than one experiment Max, where do you think cycle charts come from (the freshwater unassisted cycle time)

they’re fifty years + established, long before the retail notion of you must buy and feed bottled bacteria ran groupthink

cycle charts are specifically unassisted freshwater biofilter timelines. They do not require human feed and dosing, they require # of days and then on the other axis you can solve for ammonia control dates. We are now building the reef tank version, you‘re helping tremendously I appreciate your open mindedness.


there aren’t any reef tank examples you’re ever going to link for us of a starved reef cycle for a reason, same as last month when I requested one example from you.

if cycles are as finicky as you say, then among the million cycles logged we will find some initial deaths, wipeouts, or failed fallow tests. Post only one, from any era or online reefing just scan forums and link one.
I never said cycles were finicky, or that starved reefs stall out, (and again, I mostly agree with you about timelines, and I told you this a month ago) what I disagree with you about is that bacteria ‘self-feed’, that they spontaneously appear out of nowhere, and that they can reproduce without a food source. There is no evidence, in any of the threads you’ve ever posted, of bacteria being ‘self feeding’, there is no evidence of marine nitrifying bacteria spontaneously appearing in a reef tank (it has to be introduced somehow), and there is no evidence that bacteria can reproduce, especially at the exponential level that is required for a productive biological filter, without a food source.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top