• For a Limited Time the R2R Partner Membership is NOW OPEN! Get some cool swag and chances to win part of over $20,000 in prizes! Click here for more details

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

Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
2,977
Reaction score
3,678
Location
The mountains of Southern California
As a noob I am perfectly happy I did a long fishless cycle as it gave me the opportunity to learn how to adjust my equiptment and learn a few things before I put a living creature in. And by the way people should stop underselling the smell of skimate to us poor freshwater scrubs moving over. That thick dark stuff smells alot like liquid death. I was cleaning the cup last night and my wife accused the dog of messing on the floor...she was in a different room.
I can personally say I’ve never undersold the rancid stench of a properly operating foam fractionation device!!! Hahaha
 

Alenya

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
219
Reaction score
284
Location
Perth WA
Agreed don’t do this test Alenya with fish, do it with bottle bac and liquid ammonium chloride, look to see if levels above .02 ppm nh3 are ever sustained

my commentary regarding those who have already been doing this with fish and it works fine is a remark to the abilities of bottle bac, it is legit.
I have started cycling a fresh tank with Dr Tim’s and liquid ammonium chloride. Initial dose was 3ppm and after a week reduced to 2ppm. Not a great environment for a fish, and certainly not what I would class as evidence.
 

oigimsar

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
720
Reaction score
26
Location
San Gabriel Valley, CA
I’m not trying to be dense here but I’ve read the entire thread and I’m missing something. I think some of it may be semantics.

When I read “fish in cycle”, I assume someone is talking about cycling the tank with a fish. If I am reading the thread correctly, Brandon is talking about a “fish in + bacteria cycle”. Is that correct?

If the latter, this has been demonstrated time and again, hasn’t it? Both by people such as Dr. Tim who has conducted experiments and will happily discuss the data and then by people’s experience.

And, if this is what is being asked, I’m not seeing anyone in this thread refuting that? Although some would still do it differently.

I’ve always thought the language of “cycling” a tank is misleading, as if it happens then it’s done. As opposed to “stabilizing”...maybe there is a better word? But I think to a beginner the whole conversation can be misleading. Aren’t we starting a cycle more than finishing it? Which makes the bacteria in a bottle concept make more sense.
 

BeltedCoyote

Lord of the Memes
View Badges
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
1,488
Reaction score
6,224


edit: couldn’t resist, sorry. But this is quite literally an entire thread based upon semantics.

OP is asking for hobbyists to prove what has already been demonstrated by well respected members of not only the hobby but also the saltwater aquarium industry but says there isn’t anything that proves fish in method of kick starting a cycle is doable without harming fish.

not trying to be rude or anything, but when an argument is put forth, and a valid counter argument is provided, and then discarded for what amounts to be a reiteration of the original postulate....that’s semantics.
 
Last edited:

Alenya

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
219
Reaction score
284
Location
Perth WA
I’m not trying to be dense here but I’ve read the entire thread and I’m missing something. I think some of it may be semantics.

When I read “fish in cycle”, I assume someone is talking about cycling the tank with a fish. If I am reading the thread correctly, Brandon is talking about a “fish in + bacteria cycle”. Is that correct?

If the latter, this has been demonstrated time and again, hasn’t it? Both by people such as Dr. Tim who has conducted experiments and will happily discuss the data and also by people’s experience.

And, if this is what is being asked, I’m not seeing anyone in this thread refuting that? Although some would still do it differently.

I’ve always thought the language of “cycling” a tank is misleading, as if it happens then it’s done. As opposed to “stabilizing”...maybe there is a better word? But I think to a beginner the whole conversation can be misleading. Aren’t we starting a cycle more than finishing it? Which makes the bacteria in a bottle concept make more sense.
You’re not dense, I am objecting to the same thing. A fish in cycle uses the fish to produce ammonia to feed bacteria and process the nitrogen cycle. A far cry imo from adding the bacteria in at the same time.
 
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
Alenya

You reported for sure nh3 levels, how did you verify the readings?

a running theme here is nobody in the thread except for digital test owners is going to get accurate nh3 readings, and that inaccurate readings then advice afterwards is what makes up most of the falsehoods we promote regarding ammonia action. I posted a way to calibrate your test kit after a large water change, then it’ll work correctly.

your sustained ~2 ppm has never been reported on a seneye I’ve seen in my seneye reading threads, but I can find literally one million search returns for the level if we use api or red sea or salifert or nyos but never a digital tester.

I wanted to you try search here, or other forums where people use $300 non cheap ammonia test kits to see if they ever held at 2ppm, and for sure link that here and it’ll be the first I’ve seen- that rare among thousands of reef logs we have online. I can’t even find a seneye reporting tenths ppm, so the 2.0 is truly next level can’t wait to see.


what we typically get instead of a seneye log is dug in heels, my
api/Red Sea test is correct I’m sure, and matter closed in frustration for ever having been doubted in measure. Hoping for something different possibly this round, this is merely a simple comparison among test kits we use to base our entire concept of what bacteria do in a system. Making the effort to source and read just a few seneye logs during a cycle will cause doubt in nh3 testing standards for this hobby. Skipping that effort will leave us thinking titration kits make accurate readings for free ammonia
 
Last edited:
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas

I want readers to keep this thread in mind, a common fish- in cycle with Fritz bac to see how well it's working. We need to work on pre verification testing before fish, but the whole waiting weeks and trusting unverified readings that never match tank biology is about to be booted from the hobby. As doom is predicted, contrast that to this tank and the others we'll bring on board for tracking.

Clearly, unequivocally, those fish haven't been harmed one iota.
 

Alenya

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
219
Reaction score
284
Location
Perth WA
Alenya

You reported for sure nh3 levels, how did you verify the readings?

a running theme here is nobody in the thread except for digital test owners is going to get accurate nh3 readings, and that inaccurate readings then advice afterwards is what makes up most of the falsehoods we promote regarding ammonia action. I posted a way to calibrate your test kit after a large water change, then it’ll work correctly.

your sustained ~2 ppm has never been reported on a seneye I’ve seen in my seneye reading threads, but I can find literally one million search returns for the level if we use api or red sea or salifert or nyos but never a digital tester.

I wanted to you try search here, or other forums where people use $300 non cheap ammonia test kits to see if they ever held at 2ppm, and for sure link that here and it’ll be the first I’ve seen- that rare among thousands of reef logs we have online. I can’t even find a seneye reporting tenths ppm, so the 2.0 is truly next level can’t wait to see.


what we typically get instead of a seneye log is dug in heels, my
api/Red Sea test is correct I’m sure, and matter closed in frustration for ever having been doubted in measure. Hoping for something different possibly this round, this is merely a simple comparison among test kits we use to base our entire concept of what bacteria do in a system. Making the effort to source and read just a few seneye logs during a cycle will cause doubt in nh3 testing standards for this hobby. Skipping that effort will leave us thinking titration kits make accurate readings for free ammonia
You keep referring to ammonia; as a chemist I find it easy to measure and dispense appropriate concentrations in a tank of known volume.
 
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
Agreed, it's the ability to measure anything accurately thereafter I'm interested in seeing since digital meters are hard to find

Post lab gear measures using hach, can we see anything other than api or red sea data?

Did you check even a few seneye logs

I'm thinking I'll have to link those too, to help context

Seneye readers are on this thread, will get a response soon if they read something stated wrong in what their meters show, which is commonly thousandths ppm. I don't know of another test reading that degree of sensitivity

It's no dead horse to review, contrast and compare hobby kit ammonia readings for massive variation in accuracy, that's a big deal conflict very pertinent here-it's how nearly everyone evaluates damage.
 
Last edited:
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
A bounty saves me link work. Twenty bucks PayPal to the first poster with seneye logs showing stuck ammonia at any level tenths ppm + for more than 12 hours. Expires by lunch lol = seneye + empty bucket of water dosed to 1ppm etc. Find it from honest online logs there are thousands
 
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
ok, maybe someone else wont be offended Im offering them cash to prove that dangerous levels of free nh3 are permitted using bottle bac and ammonium chloride, not fish. That was extremely harsh of me :) to offer a free lunch.

seneye logs are already online, its very easy to put that into google for a free meal, I can't see how its offensive it seems like an awesome way to prove data inconsistency

-to incent someone to simply search logs already reported in droves cant be all bad... Im not getting much of a response otherwise. We take an ammonia reading, post it, and refuse to budge, wont verify or check for patterns of support, that's how we measure ammonia in the hobby.

Im disappointed we didnt get clarity on how you measure oxidation though
 
Last edited:

Jen1978

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
109
Reaction score
111
Location
Pennsylvania
So I'm filling up my new 150g right now. It has live sand but dead rock. Went ahead and ordered some MicroBacter Start XLM. I'll seed it this weekend and add a fish or two from my Biocube on Monday.

I'll test a ton and move my fish back if there's any sign of trouble. It'll only be one data point but I don't really see the harm.
I'd say all goes well for you. Just ran a fish in cycle on my 55 gallon using Dr. Tims one and only. Live sand, dry rock. All went well. Monitored with seneye and Red Sea test kit. Ammonia never went above .05. Everyone acted normal the entire process.
 
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
Jen, a critical response that was, crucial. Thank you for the measure.

Our first cycling max ppm seneye reading, we have a comparative data set developing now and we aren’t going to run shy on Red Sea and api input, this might be our only one to remark upon cycle data, digitally.
 
Fragtacular Sale
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
Because reef2reef allows exploration of the rules vs ban stick, it’s fair to say we have now built a work thread where the consensus is NOT that fish - in cycling with bottle bac harms fish, more than one reefing respondent. Burgeoning digital measures vs an all-Api thread, that will make this stand out and be open to scrutiny, from seneye owners, post detractions immediately pls I respect your measuring device.

reasonable doubt in the old rules, established, fair science, check. about to accept some cycle rule changes like we had to accept pico reef changes, derision from non seneye owners all in check. evolution is painful
 
Last edited:

saf1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
6,505
Reaction score
11,249
I think that's false, and that ammonia burned fish act a certain way. so lets find a way to prove one way or another and end the false info spreading.
Probably the easiest way to answer this question is to build up a pool of water with ammonia greater than 4 ppm and jump in it. We can then look at ones reaction and give a thumbs up or down to answer the question. Actually - that probably won't do the trick. We can, however, do what I did back in basic training and enter a room with your gear only to have the chemical go off randomly while you frantically don mask to clear and make sure it fits properly. I'd wager not having the mask or ill fitting mask is how that fish feels with ammonia.

Snarky reply aside the way I look at it is rather simple. History is written so we learn and do not repeat the same mistakes. Knowledge is gained and new ways of doing things brought fourth. Fishless cycle being one of them. There really is no reason for doing it this way anymore regardless if it is harmful or not.

It can be done without so why bother?
 
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
seneye is the referee here, thats fair and neutral.



i know how to keep this thread on track. I formally request that the next post be a counter analysis of this thread and all typed in it.




somebody here wanting to contribute to cycling science, read that thread and answer his questions. Make counter findings, make new outcome predictions. Everything from this thread, Im testing live time there


*afterwards, someone then proceed to intercept a fish-in cycle thread, be convincing and they’ll consider your input, and show how you run it. Make your predictions and we get to measure by watching the tank mature. to me, that’s the best test of claims there can be

If they have no fish state when they can. If they do, state if they're being burned


if you guys will do one thread I’ll be so happy, something using an actual reef. Source a thread and post it all here, will make the call, we compare simply the outcome. I commit to getting ten more actual live time tanks in the thread, will make calls we get to track.
 
Last edited:
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
#2, countdown to ten, ya'll do just one


where to find work: in the new keepers forum, any forum on the planet. dont get shy on me

when can he carry bioload: either now or a hundred years ago, we need to see how old his live rock is first.


are the animals in tow being burned: does caulastrea open up all happy + fish acting happy if burned? no, no burn. skip cycle reef literally no waiting time; rocks showed up ready. this is 95% of convention cycles for thirty years or so.
 
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
13,529
Reaction score
11,049
Location
tejas
#3 cycle call


second poster, TerralCognita, is right.

when can the tank handle bioload? now or however old the live rock is... moving live rocks never causes dieoff from a reasonable drive, underwater, and we'd never add ammonia here to verify something we can see clearly, we dont pay extra for live rock, then burn it in doubt of bacteria, in a civilized cycling world. :) (pods and worms and tiny benthic fanworms dont need reverification, you paid for them, treat them as alive and things that dislike nh3 burning)

are animals added going to be burned: no.

is api showing a problem, yes.

how are predictions from this thread lining up so far


why am I not concerned she had dieoff driving home? because it will not happen, we have hundreds of participants at any given time in our tank transfer/sand rinse thread, hour drives + are the norm.

she did a variation of the massive sand rinse thread linked from prior pages, though she was really just changing from LFS to home.

that doesnt cause a mini cycle in real life; only for api.

my whole reef could drain that long and not cycle.
 
Last edited:

How important is it to recreate waves in your reef aquarium?

  • Very Important

    Votes: 112 24.2%
  • Somewhat Important

    Votes: 157 33.9%
  • Not Too Important

    Votes: 112 24.2%
  • Not Important At All

    Votes: 80 17.3%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 2 0.4%

Online statistics

Members online
663
Guests online
2,431
Total visitors
3,094
Top