No nitrates and high ammonia - cycled tank

[hbubley]

I haven't had a death, and the nitrates were at 10 yesterday. So I think things are okay? I'll take some more params tonight. I have a shipment of corals and a white tail yellow eye tang coming tomorrow (observation tank is all set up), so I definitely want to make sure everything is good.

 

[hbubley]

@brandon429 also read in another post you're also an Austin-ite. Nice to meet a fellow texan in Austin!

 

[brandon429]

I think river city is a great little store pretty cool. I wish one of these shops sold pre mixed tropic marin saltwater, but they don't. at least river city sells pre mixed red sea that's a decent stand in. Nice to meet you too one day we can meet up there and check out their frags

 

[hbubley]

I think river city is a great little store pretty cool. I wish one of these shops sold pre mixed tropic marin saltwater, but they don't. at least river city sells pre mixed red sea that's a decent stand in. Nice to meet you too one day we can meet up there and check out their frags

I haven't been to river city, I'll have to check that one out this weekend! I frequent Austin Aqua Dome a bunch, I live like 10 mins from there. So far all my livestock (aside from the order I have coming in tomorrow, which is from WWC) is from aqua dome

 

[brandon429]

hey next time you're at the dome would you snap a cell phone pic of that palythoa nano reef they have on the front counter and post here

wanted to post that pic in some palythoa threads but I'm in Georgetown and don't want to drive that far for it. its truly the most palythoas per gallon I've ever seen in any reef. I bet that tank is over ten years old with them too. about a thousand polyps on the back wall alone lol. If palythoa is dangerous/can be aerosolized, I'm amazed the whole store has not keeled over. I don't understand how there are these palytoxin nearly killed my whole family off one handling of a tiny frag, yet that nano reef has 1000 of them right where customers check out for over a decade and not a single mention at all of any duress. I simply like studying conflicts and claims in reefing circles.

 

[hbubley]

hey next time you're at the dome would you snap a cell phone pic of that palythoa nano reef they have on the front counter

wanted to post that pic in some palythoa threads but I'm in Georgetown and don't want to drive that far for it. its truly the most palythoas per gallon I've ever seen in any reef. I bet that tank is over ten years old with them too. about a thousand polyps on the back wall alone lol. If palythoa is dangerous/can be aerosolized, I'm amazed the whole store has not keeled over.

I'd love to!! I'll grab a shot tomorrow, I'll be heading there to pick up some nori for my tang Yeah they have a HUGE coral selection, they're beautiful.

 

[MnFish1]

its ok. I'll raise you this:

Sustained Ammonia spikes are misreads

The reason you think your reef tank can’t control its ammonia is due to false training from old cycling science. That and you don’t own a seneye on the tank in question: if you did, you wouldn’t ever think your ammonia was out of control...

www.reef2reef.com

seven pages of totally false panics with actual misreading kits and pics of the kits. I was hoping we could add yours to upcoming page eight lol

some of those good ones are years old tanks. I like to collect instances when test kit readings for a crashed cycle don't line up with the tank pics/symptoms in the fish.

there's a going whisper in chemistry circles that all these tanks/all future false cycles I'll post in/ are secretly very full of ammonia (the non digital test kits are correct as seen) and only the lucky pH of the system prevents it from becoming toxic. reason I don't believe that: pH is not consistent for ten years across tanks, but stacking rocks in a tank of warm moving water having been inoculated with filter bacteria that oxidize ammonia sure is consistent across tanks. we all copy means and methods that oxidize ammonia; we do not copy means and methods that control pH in everyone's tank. I've never asked any cycle staller if they live in a crowded apartment, no open windows, gas heating, low alk water OR if they live in a huge home, open windows, electric heating, 1 occupant, very high alk water (presents opposing pH extremes)

so I don't buy the lucky pH protection claim. I buy the all stalled cycles are false misreads (or misinterpretation) claim.

raise who what?

 

[MnFish1]

OK - while you high-five yourself Brandon - this is what iw said hours ago - before your repeated issues with ammonia: "The API test of 0.5 (depending on pH) - is not likely to be toxic a toxic total ammonia level - and the 2 levels do not match (i.e. a total API ammonia of 0.5 is the equivalent of 0.0281ppm (free ammonia - which is what is measured on the Seachem alert - again if thats what you're using). Both suggest you have some ammonia - but it's unclear which one is right. Thus - I agree you need a third test. "

 

[MnFish1]

as the third test been done?

 

[Crustaceon]

I didn’t think there was an “old vs new” cycling science. I thought science was just science.

 

[brandon429]

MN is on full block for a good reason. I occasionally read his posts to see which personality (insightful vs flame starter everyone is tired of, I have thread examples) is typing but not often


Crustaceon I’m still learning to tell when you’re sincere or not, assuming you’re being sincere let me ask you this to discern one of twenty differences between new and old cycling science

if there was a thread where a nine month old reef tank stocked with macro a plenty, about 150 pounds of solid cured live rock with coralline, a huge red starfish and several fish and not any deaths said they’d been at 8 ppm ammonia for the last 60 days straight because an alert badge said so, would you believe it? Old cycling science does/did/still does


new cycling science: no way, not possible, never.

which side do you take, and if you believe it can happen I’ll ask for a linked readable example where you’ve seen that before

if you don’t believe it’s possible, that’s the minority view and is a rather updated stance on cycling science. The majority opinion is always old cycling science

 

[brandon429]

Additional differences

Can old cycling science assign a close cycle date for any reef tank posted in a forum before the system is built, or does it require tedious repeat ammonia testing and nitrite testing to know when a cycle is done (open-ended wait time different for each tank)

there must be fifty obvious ways the two paradigms differ




old cycling science factors nitrite for a ready date, new cycling science does not



consider reef conventions

buyers walk around buying products to hopefully be able to complete a reef tank cycle, once tests agree its done after a decent long wait (open ended always)

sellers were able to arrange every reef display in the convention to be ready on the start date, using no products, worthy enough to carry a hundred thousand dollars in stock *and* they skip cycle transfer the unsold materials back home every time, by command not by hope

Aspects of new cycling science have been hidden from buyers for a long time by design. They won’t be buyers if they get the good info…it’s new to buyers.


old cycling science has no concept of live rock transfer skip cycling. Old cycling always requires we dose ammonia to every system and watch for a rise and fall by testing. No rise and fall= not cycled. Per old cycling science and Eli from ‘biomics, you can’t tell if a set of rocks are cycled without testing.

heres Eli making that statement

Instant Tank Cycle

Set up my tank Friday. Placed a sizeable chunk of frozen brine shrimp into the filter sock to stop it messing up the tank. Saturday PM Ammonia is 0 Saturday PM added another chunk of frozen brine shrimp different area of sump. Added seeded live rock from other tanks also. Sunday PM Ammonia...

www.reef2reef.com

for the last four years I’ve been back editing examples where we cycled reef tanks without testing.

 

[MnFish1]

Best wishes - I have no clue what the last 2 posts translate into.

 

[hbubley]

haven't read everything yet but my pH was about 8.4 today. Alk was at 10.3.

 

[Spare time]

I didn’t think there was an “old vs new” cycling science. I thought science was just science.

Its not science There is no scientific method being applied, therefore its not science.

 

[Crustaceon]

Its not science There is no scientific method being applied, therefore its not science.

I have to agree with you on that which is why I have the attitude of "playing things safe" when it comes to cycling. Yeah, it sounds boring and archaic, but I also believe in science. Not pseudo science where some research is done, lots of questions remain and people just accept the theory as fact. "This MAY do this" isn't good enough. That's not how it's supposed to work and when the complete picture is revealed through the actual scientific method via due diligence and repeatable, peer reviewed results, I'll happily accept that as fact.

 

[MnFish1]

I have to agree with you on that which is why I have the attitude of "playing things safe" when it comes to cycling. Yeah, it sounds boring and archaic, but I also believe in science. Not pseudo science where some research is done, lots of questions remain and people just accept the theory as fact. "This MAY do this" isn't good enough. That's not how it's supposed to work and when the complete picture is revealed through the actual scientific method via due diligence and repeatable, peer reviewed results, I'll happily accept that as fact.

As various posters have said - it is true that many people do not perform tests correctly - or interpret them correctly - which can lead to false conclusions. Nitrite, for example is tested but is non-toxic in a reef pH but can be useful in following a cycle. There are pages of debate about whether this makes sense or not. Pages of debate about API vs other tests, etc etc.

In reality the science part is that the higher the pH the more free (damaging) ammonia thats present. You do not need a Seneye or some digital equipment to prove this. If you have the total ammonia, and know the pH you can easily see whether the free ammonia is high enough to cause a problem. For example - using the calculator below. At pH 7.8 with a total ammonia of 2 ppm - the free ammonia is 0.05 - which is not great (it's at the 'Alert' level - tolerable for 3-5 days. However at pH 8.2 - the free ammonia is 0.17 which is probably requiring immediate water changes.

The typical readings that hobbyists get is 0.5 ppm ammonia or 0.25 ppm. Even at pH 8.3 - the free ammonia level is 0.05 - which again isn't perfect but not dangerous. 0.25 ppm total ammonia equates to 0.02 - which is 'safe'.

I think that this is the reason that some posters say - look at the tank - if the fish are ok, the ammonia is a 'false reading'. This IMHO is a mistake. In all likelihood, the reading is correct, it's just that the pH, salinity, and temperature have resulted in a low level of free (toxic) ammonia. However again IMHO - this is still a symptom - and though fish can swim in a tank with 0.25 ppm total ammonia, it's probably best at 0.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Crustaceon]

As various posters have said - it is true that many people do not perform tests correctly - or interpret them correctly - which can lead to false conclusions. Nitrite, for example is tested but is non-toxic in a reef pH but can be useful in following a cycle. There are pages of debate about whether this makes sense or not. Pages of debate about API vs other tests, etc etc.

In reality the science part is that the higher the pH the more free (damaging) ammonia thats present. You do not need a Seneye or some digital equipment to prove this. If you have the total ammonia, and know the pH you can easily see whether the free ammonia is high enough to cause a problem. For example - using the calculator below. At pH 7.8 with a total ammonia of 2 ppm - the free ammonia is 0.05 - which is not great (it's at the 'Alert' level - tolerable for 3-5 days. However at pH 8.2 - the free ammonia is 0.17 which is probably requiring immediate water changes.

The typical readings that hobbyists get is 0.5 ppm ammonia or 0.25 ppm. Even at pH 8.3 - the free ammonia level is 0.05 - which again isn't perfect but not dangerous. 0.25 ppm total ammonia equates to 0.02 - which is 'safe'.

I think that this is the reason that some posters say - look at the tank - if the fish are ok, the ammonia is a 'false reading'. This IMHO is a mistake. In all likelihood, the reading is correct, it's just that the pH, salinity, and temperature have resulted in a low level of free (toxic) ammonia. However again IMHO - this is still a symptom - and though fish can swim in a tank with 0.25 ppm total ammonia, it's probably best at 0.

Sorry for the long post.

I agree on that. Yes, simply having living fish in a tank at the moment isn’t a great indicator of the tank being healthy long-term as many fish can somewhat tolerate toxic levels of ammonia. That doesn’t necessarily mean those fish will thrive for weeks, months or years in that slightly toxic environment. We ideally want undetectable levels of ammonia. My concern with testing cycling status is determining whether or not the cycle has actually completed or if it has “stalled out” due to some required building block momentarily depleting and testing at a bad moment that gives favorable but temporary results which leads new reefers to adding livestock prematurely. I wonder if we’re seeing similar happen all the time like with carbon dosing where nitrate reduction completely stops due to phosphate levels being depleted, allowing nitrate levels to actually rise until a sufficient level of phosphates becomes accessible. Could the same hold true for let’s say, ammonia and cycling? I’m legitimately curious.

 

[MnFish1]

I agree on that. Yes, simply having living fish in a tank at the moment isn’t a great indicator of the tank being healthy long-term as many fish can somewhat tolerate toxic levels of ammonia. That doesn’t necessarily mean those fish will thrive for weeks, months or years in that slightly toxic environment. We ideally want undetectable levels of ammonia. My concern with testing cycling status is determining whether or not the cycle has actually completed or if it has “stalled out” due to some required building block momentarily depleting and testing at a bad moment that gives favorable but temporary results which leads new reefers to adding livestock prematurely. I wonder if we’re seeing similar happen all the time like with carbon dosing where nitrate reduction completely stops due to phosphate levels being depleted, allowing nitrate levels to actually rise until a sufficient level of phosphates becomes accessible. Could the same hold true for let’s say, ammonia and cycling? I’m legitimately curious.

I'm not sure the question you're exactly asking about ammonia? Can you rephrase it?

 

[MischiefReef]

Glad it was just a false alarm!!
The only other comment I would add is referencing your use of windex on your tank glass, be extremely careful of overspray, windex contains ammonia, and it will possibly show up in your tank readings if you clean the glass frequently using windex or enough gets in your tank. Id suggest to clean using towel that’s only wetted on one corner and a small bucket of warm water. You can take off a ton of salt and rinse the damp corner of the towel as you work and the dry portion of the towel cleans up the streaks, all in one wipe!