Open challenge for the hobby: prove that fish-in cycles harm fish.

[K7BMG]

This will be fought over for a very long time.
The science to prove the CURRENT method of Fish In cycling is still young, relatively speaking anyway.

I am sure there are hundreds of tanks that have been successful using this method.
Basing total and perfect success solely on the fact everything survived the process is not common sense.

I can offer evidence.

I live in an area where where we get inundated with smoke from forest fires.
The short time we humans are breathing this carcinogen filled air, there is a rash of people with induced breathing issues because of it. These are facts not fictions.
Did we / they all survive? Yes, but did they suffer, yes, (I did) do they have potential for long term effects that can cause health problems down the road. Yes.
Have many come out of this and not been effected, yes.
This has been proven time and time again.

So when you have a fish die 6 months later and are clueless as to why, well maybe it was because of the slight ammonia in the water when the fish in cycle was done.

The average hobbyist is NEVER going to pull out the fish and examine gill conditions before during and after the process. Nor will they have the scientific background to do so.

I am not saying that the Fish IN tank cycling is not successful or should not be done.
But I don't know that its the best way for the fish overall. The potential to harm or burn the gills is very real.

If ammonia was no big deal we reefers would not concern ourselves at all.
But we reefers are very concerned about the slightest level of ammonia and the potential of detrimental things than can and do happen to our fish.
Or is this a false statement?

@brandon429,
So based on the human studies I have presented twice now, I will use this as my scientific facts your looking for.
If you feel these facts can't or should not be translated to the Fish IN cycling then you would have to also conclude the reverse, that any study and research done to animals should not be used or applied to humans as well.

Even in your first post you state the fact I am speaking about.

" You can burn a three hundred dollar anemone and it still acts normal for half a year? "
But then what?

There are people I trust here on R2R and other reefing communities that are proponents of Fish and Bacteria in, and all is well. Some I look to as mentors, and respect them highly. I will not do this myself.

 

[92Miata]

That's not evidence. It's an anecdotal analogy.


And again, nobody is arguing that ammonia doesnt harm fish.

 

[brandon429]

This is fascinating to watch how peers regulate each other ethically. Thats no judgement- its just an interesting bar to watch unfold and modify slowly over time here.

the #1 reason I like posting legit controversies here are for non-milquetoast answers, I truly think RTR is cutting edge and if you can convince this crowd that a procedural change is necessary, you've done something. if you write overtly incorrect things here, a notable pattern of correction will unfold by highly adept aquarists, you guys are the best filters for claims.

but if in 12 pages we get a 40% support idea 60% I hate you and your idea, any statistician takes note. this was supposed to be a shut the book eval among peers everyone agrees fish in cycling with bottle bac harms fish


and not everyone thinks that, some seneye owners have chimed in not thinking it.

we're 40/60 split apparently among the best reefers I know agreeing on what constitutes fish harm or not.

that makes the thread worthy for more evaluation in my opinion, for highlighting conflicts in measure.


we need to start bribing seneye owners to do some fun stuff (or mail them some bottle bac, and dry rock and liquid ammonium chloride)= paypal bribery to get good data is accepted among anecdote circles (a hundred anecdotes lining up to show predictable outcomes begins to trend towards new truth imo)

the findings of reef tank posters isn't useless anecdote, the patterns in post anecdotes combined with pictures and other repeating details becomes the most useful information in reefing to some

*to be able to answer accurately if fish-in cycling + bacteria harms fish means we actually know what nh3 is doing and in the end that will benefit overall reefing, to tie our reactions to verified readings or to delay reactions until we get some.

2 & 1/2 weeks fully cycled?? Is this possible?

It is infact temporary. Like I said it only changes the ammonia for about 48 hours (again can't remember the exact time) but you can always add more Got it, Thank you

www.reef2reef.com

a darn fine fish in cycle. In a reef court of law I’d affirm reef fish were not harmed. Too many redundant bacteria sources, well-planned FIC here. Cycling 2020

 

[Alenya]

What Brandon is talking about is doing a fish in cycle, WITH additional bacteria..... such as bottled bacteria, or live sand, rock, established media, etc....

That’s not a fish in cycle - that’s a tank already cycled with bacteria.

A fish in cycle is fish providing ammonia to START the cycle.

 

[attiland]

I just don’t understand the fascination witH ammonia. Yes you need to know if your cycle has started in the first few weeks but that’s about it. You don’t even have to have exact results because you also measured a bunch of other things indicates the aquarium has started to work. The indicator to me that the cycle is on the right path is phosphate nitrate and nitrite not ammonia.
I am amused by the firm believers of one way of cycling the tank. The thing is no way is bad in fact it happens and you can’t stop it. The only difference is the speed.
so if you like to doze ammonia will work,
Battle + fish will work and if you are an aquarium ticking type that will work too. And out of the above the B+F is the quickest and my choice. I jus don’t fancy rotting a crab in there for months like people used to do.
I have killed fish in the last 40 years but not with cycling. I remember when I was about 10 we in the aquarium club have set up dozens of tanks. We had no water tester. We didn’t use any thing just tap water. A week later we have our few fish in. That was freshwater but the cycling is the same and no fish was harmed during the process. Go slow and no harm will be done.
Do your water testing but don’t just look the figures look at the tendency and that will help more than the most accurate results. And anyway what difference it makes that your ph is 8.01 8-8.5 when it works from 7.5 to 9

 

[Fakegolfnews]

Lets do a study to figure out why virtue signaking seems to make some people feel so good about themselves.

I did fish in cycle with micro bacter7, carribsea shape rock (has bacteria on it), live sand and used tank water. Not only was the damsel very happy day one till now, but the tank never even went thru an ugly stage.

You people can be as dogmatic as you want and waste time and go thru a 6 month ugly stage, but im gonna use the info and products available to create a beautiful tank very quickly.

 

[teller]

Uncalled for criticism. You don't know him - stop judging. If you have something positive to contribute, please do so.

I said in my post that many people still kill their fish in quarantine tanks due to ammonia. For every thread about someone killing their fish because ammonia there are at least 10/100 who knows how many people killing fish in quarantine just because of ammonia.
Also most of his post are unreadable.

 

[brandon429]

then how do you know we’re disagreeing, if comprehension is in question


i don’t mind getting off-topic posts, people without a clear point need places to vent, can do here.

for the folks interested in relating thread patterns and seneye readings to cycling trends, we are all very clear on discussion points.



choose one thread asking for cycle help and link it

(Side note: I found FIC example thread number ten, would you like to analyze it first? Let me know the direct yes/no answer before I post)


if you would though find a relevant cycling thread and post it for you and I to compare, that would be directly helpful and responsive to three direct requests provided to you. For sure you understand that, am certain.


pick a cycling thread example let’s compare analyses

 

[teller]

And one more thing. When I say his posts are many times unreadable, this is expressed in some post in this thread when people say something like "I believe the OP is saying... " or " I think the OP is saying..." Even people are not clear of what the OP is actually talking about. Then suddenly the OP change some view and the confusion rises. This has happened many times in other threads. I agree with the OP thread related to the API ammonia register .25 problem. That really seems a bad, confusion not real reading. In this we agree. But the rest.....whatever.

 

[Cell]

And one more thing. When I say his posts are many times unreadable, this is expressed in some post in this thread when people say something like "I believe the OP is saying... " or " I think the OP is saying..." Even people are not clear of what the OP is actually talking about. Then suddenly the OP change some view and the confusion rises. This has happened many times in other threads. I agree with the OP thread related to the API ammonia register .25 problem. That really seems a bad, confusion not real reading. In this we agree. But the rest.....whatever.

Thanks for clarifying. This post was helpful.

 

[brandon429]

@teller

CYCLING WITH LIVE ROCK FROM LFS

Ok, so I have searched and can't come up with my exact answers so I have to ask. I have live rock from a fish store in CT that had really good reviews. The live rock was ok. I drove an hour and a half to get it so I was expecting better. Anyway, it was bagged in water and I put it in my tank with...

www.nano-reef.com

Answer the questions from first post

Is her ammonia accurately stated given the context


What's the context I'm referring to (starts getting confusing here)

Does her rock need cycling


When can that tank safely handle fish bioload

 

[K7BMG]

That's not evidence. It's an anecdotal analogy.


And again, nobody is arguing that ammonia doesnt harm fish.

Clearly I disagree.

The OP in the 1st post and the 4th post after just a quick reread states the fish are not burnt. Leading the reader to believe that even if there is a slight spike of ammonia in a fish in cycle is 100% harmless because they don't act burnt.

Well as he asks for evidence from the majority to prove they are not burnt I am just rebutting him and say he can't prove their not.

In the end the fish in cycle and its immediate and long term effects are still relatively new and won't be vetted for a long while.
We once thought undergravel filters were the is all end all, and now, well thats another discution.

You may call my post not evidence or anecdotal but that does not make the information inacurate, or not able to be applied here.

The fish in cycle is here, and will continue on, and thats ok.
Its the latest cycling method and it does work.
How good it is for the fish I have no answer, nor do others.
But this is how we advance the hobby through trial and error.

 

[brandon429]

we have seneye already measuring safe levels of a fish in cycle, I have a direct measure for it. Your side hasn't posted the counter measure, a seneye showing burn levels or posts showing burned behavior.

we have two seneye measures in fact
Ive been able to link observable fish behavior with ammonia measures in the low hundredths ppm, that's rather specific. We have been able to show both by bounty incentive and by measures posted that nobody's reef tank is hitting tenths ppm and sustaining that

@teller
dont forget above, answer post #231 I'm grading for content and arrangement.

K7BMG
I need you to run the same analysis from the thread above, post yours.

I want to see how we each handle cycling variation calls that pin down a specific date they can begin, vs an offer to wait weeks and weeks which is not required (or no reef conventions could ever start on time)

please answer the questions stated above regarding this cycle example from #231

 

[K7BMG]

we have seneye already measuring safe levels of a fish in cycle, I have a direct measure for it. Your side hasn't posted the counter measure, a seneye showing burn levels.

@teller
dont forgot above

K7BMG
I need you to run the same analysis from the thread above, post yours.

Yes I agree you have a tool to detect "safe levels"
But what is that safe level?
Who and how did they determine what that safe level is.
Is this level exactly the same for all fish, no matter the species.

What if the Seneye is not used is the cycle situation the same, with the same success rate or chance of success?

I would be more on your side but heres the flaw.

You need saltwater
Rock
Bacteria
And a seneye.
Of course fish.

So for the thousands out there who go to the local LFS that do not carry the Seneye well is it the same?

The Seneye may just be the better tool but it takes the human behind it to pay attention to that tool and act if a problem occurs.

Anyway good discussion but I have to head to work.
Ill be back.

 

[brandon429]

somebody analyze this cycle from nano-reef.com, I can barely hold back my keystrokes its torture.

CYCLING WITH LIVE ROCK FROM LFS

Ok, so I have searched and can't come up with my exact answers so I have to ask. I have live rock from a fish store in CT that had really good reviews. The live rock was ok. I drove an hour and a half to get it so I was expecting better. Anyway, it was bagged in water and I put it in my tank with...

www.nano-reef.com

dodge no mas, lay down the definitive analysis: can start date, ammonia levels, context for stating ammonia levels, and whether or not the rock from the lfs needs cycling whatsoever to any degree- see you've got me spilling hints now with all the delays.

(a rumble in the crowd builds... there's dieoff, duh, she moved the rock and it cannot tolerate movement whatsoever. everybody knows any touching of live rock immediately generates sustained .25 ammonia, its on record)

 

[MnFish1]

It seems like very simple experiments would shed light on this, and if it were done with just a little rigor, newbies could stop running the experiment over an over again.

The experiments have already been done - haven't they? @Dr. Reef showed clearly - that Fritz 9000 (and another I believe) - reduced ammonia from 2 or 4 to zero - within 24 hours. (by only adding ammonia and the product) - Other products did not work well - until a carbon source was added. The control (ammonia only) - did not drop at all over a 1 week time.

The plan was for @Dr. Reef to do a fish + bacteria cycle - with safeguards in place such that ammonia levels (via Seneye) would not get high enough to cause an issue - but there was a public outcry of animal cruelty.

My understanding - is that 'way back when' - when people were buying live wet rock (from the ocean) - that was shipped - often there were ammonia spikes due to dying 'stuff' on the rock - thus it was kept in bins, etc - until that 'stuff' decomposed - and the tank was 'cycled'. Of course you couldn't add fish/coral during that period.

To me - current state of the art - with dry rock - and bottled bacteria (which the directions on the bottle state how to add bacteria and fish immediately) - It remains unclear to me why this is even a debate anymore. No one is suggesting dropping fish into a tank and just 'letting nature take its course'. No one is suggesting (as people did in the past - use a cheap, fish - so if it dies - who cares - and when the cycle is done - kill it anyway (thats the way I remember 'fish cycles').

IMHO - people claiming this is cruel may not be understanding how its done - or the science behind it. There is no difference between 20 billion bacteria from a bottle - or 20 billion bacteria that develop in a tank for a 6 week cycle (that I can see)

 

[RichReef]

I had a crash and had to move everything out of my 90 into a 55 that I set up a week prior. The 90 had to be taken down for a room renovation anyways.

After just a week of having the 55 set up with some dry rock I used the Instant Ocean Bio- something. I followed the directions and put it in the tank. After an hour or so I put all my fish and the corals that survived the ongoing crash into 2 5 gallon buckets with makeshift overflows from elecrical gray pvc bulkheads and dripped from the DT to 1 bucket, into the next, and into the sump. Each bucket had a small heater. I did this for 24 hours.

I lost nothing. The fish took the new tank instantly and ate right away.

2 Acans.
Ton of ricordea.
Hammer.
Xenia.
Frogspawn.
2 Yellow Tangs.
Coral Beauty.
Mandarin.
Starry Blenny.
Yellow Watchman and Pistol Shrimp.
Yellow Coris.
.
I lost all snails, SPS, crabs, LTA, and most LPS.
All survived without a single hiccup. That was 2 years ago. All still alive and well.

I did however use and still use a wet/dry with bio balls which can breed bacteria like no one's business.

Is this a suitable test?

 

[MnFish1]

Yes I agree you have a tool to detect "safe levels"
But what is that safe level?
Who and how did they determine what that safe level is.
Is this level exactly the same for all fish, no matter the species.

What if the Seneye is not used is the cycle situation the same, with the same success rate or chance of success?

I would be more on your side but heres the flaw.

You need saltwater
Rock
Bacteria
And a seneye.
Of course fish.

So for the thousands out there who go to the local LFS that do not carry the Seneye well is it the same?

The Seneye may just be the better tool but it takes the human behind it to pay attention to that tool and act if a problem occurs.

Anyway good discussion but I have to head to work.
Ill be back.

Here is at least one article - concerning clownfish ammonia toxicity:

(PDF) Ammonia and nitrite toxicity to false clownfish Amphiprion ocellaris

PDF | False clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris, is one of the most commercialized fish species in the world, highly produced to supply the aquarium market.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

 

[K7BMG]

"I lost all snails, SPS, crabs, LTA, and most LPS.
All survived without a single hiccup. That was 2 years ago. All still alive and well."

Ok so I am confused. Did they all die or survive lol.
Or did you mean you just lost the snails.

 

[K7BMG]

Here is at least one article - concerning clownfish ammonia toxicity:

(PDF) Ammonia and nitrite toxicity to false clownfish Amphiprion ocellaris

PDF | False clownfish, Amphiprion ocellaris, is one of the most commercialized fish species in the world, highly produced to supply the aquarium market.... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Yes good read so at .57 or less for Clowns.
Most likely damsels could be included here.

What about an Angels, Butterflys, or others.

If the fish in cycle method is to be done with only hardy or tolerant fish well then your point is further behind.

I am glad the Seneye is out there so we can have more accurate or reliable readings. But can you only justify the method based on one tool.

I am not arguing the point here just to oppose the method.
But to better the method so everyone at all levels of skill can have success and do less harm to our fish.