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

Status
Not open for further replies.

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,481
Reaction score
23,570
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
the reason its important not to claim fish-in cycling + bottle bac burns fish is because that uses misinformation to manage, don’t be caught by tomorrow’s measurement tools making inaccurate calls today. Ammonia is easy to control from today's bottle bac mixes... what isn't easy to control are losses from fish disease and Jay's entire disease forum is made up of those who completed a normal full wait cycle. Waiting long past the ammonia and nitrite control dates from a common cycle doesn't reduce disease expression rates, we can see in Jay's disease forum.


the risk of fish-in cycling is skipping disease preps, it has nothing to do with ‘burning’ fish with ammonia.


We explore here four points:

-can people make nh3 measurements accurately then subsequently advise what cycles are doing? We are all quite confident in our test kits...resolved on all readings and we make rules based on confidence. If the readings are wrong, our rules have been wrong, that’s embarrassing when future generations look up our advice and see we didn’t know what bacteria do but made some nice guesses for the gaps in ability to measure nh3 accurately.

-do fish in cycles using bottle bac harm fish, can you discern this status without any ammonia testing?


-what are the down sides to fish-in cycles with bottle bac, even if not ammonia harmed?

-if someone wants to FIC for reasons of not wanting to wait, or perhaps it’s a hospital tank to recover from a cracked display, how can they pull it off ethically?

___________________________________________________________________

Anytime someone adds bottle bac + fish on day one, we tell them unequivocally that they're harming fish/ammonia burned

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.

Harmed fish act harmed they don't swim, eat and behave normally.


Symptomless ammonia issues are part and parcel of the fear factory stating that bottle bac essentially doesn't work, though we have myriad threads as of 2022 that show bottle bac sure does work

Here is an entire reef + anemone built on day one using biospira. A full reef, fish and corals and inverts.

What was burned?

after one years running, what became the challenge for the tank / fish?
 
Last edited:

sixty_reefer

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
7,833
Location
The Reef
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This could be fun

giphy.gif
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,481
Reaction score
23,570
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
prove it by research, not killing fish, thanks for the creative input :)


you know thousands of fish in cycles are currently underway, we can turn heads, validate, or invalidate.

you can proof it without harming fish by:

finding a tester you believe makes accurate ammonia readings.

find the ld50 established levels for clownfish death from aquaculture logs, where they dont use api or red sea to run five million dollar facilities for breeding fish


run the test with liquid ammonia + bottle bac, and post if those ld50 levels are attained even with bottle bac.

what if the real harm to the hobby (or our wallets) is making false claims that mislead people about cycling bac?

disease vectoring is the risk. no fish, or full reefs, are burnt by fish-in cycling or reef-in cycling per Ike :)

slice it any way we like, but fish-in cycling doesnt burn fish or they'd act, and be, burnt.

fallacies in reefing are simply fun to test out.

prediction: we dig in heels, continue to state it burns fish while no fish act burnt, and we do not secure ammonia readings from digital testers before spreading wrong information about whether or not bottle bac work as stated. Forums are the last to let go of dated concepts: case in point, it took us about five years to accept pico reefs worked as stated without trickery. Up until a million pico reefs were (are) up and running, we were "burning" coral by allelopathy. the burnt corals fed, reproduced, and lived decades in place while burnt=patterns by forum posters who have no idea what their real nh3 readings are in any setting, including fish-in cycles.
 
Last edited:

Arabyps

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
941
Reaction score
5,672
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The state-of-the-art regarding cycling has progressed significantly. Many professionals have posted YouTube videos (BRS, ReefBuilders, etc.) demonstrating bacteria in a bottle to virtually immediately cycle a tank. The popular (albeit relatively expensive products) include Fritz TurboStart 900, Microbacter XLM, Dr, Tim's One and Only, etc. My current build is a 130 gallon DT. Day one after adding water I added Fritz TurboStart 900. Next day, fish (2 clowns, 1 wrasse). Why? Because the TurboStart populated the tank with nitrifying bacteria and they needed waste to eat or they will die. There was NEVER any measurable ammonia or nitrites. The science is straight forward and the products have been developed over the years to be effective and safe. Surely, you may continue to cycle other ways, but don't judge people beause they follow a different path.
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,481
Reaction score
23,570
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Agreed. I wish someone with seneye would just do the new tank dry sand dry rocks + ammonium chloride + any bottle bac and render the data.

I bet it doesnt say the magic numbers: .25 free ammonia for days.

Im going to estimate this site has seen one thousand fish in cycle posts in the last 3 years. I cannot recall one instance of the fish acting harmed in any way, any brand used. I cant recall on other forums any fish-in cycles that showed harm or dead fish other than they live long enough to get eaten up by crypto or brook, long past cycle timeframes.

In 2020 when we place vehicles in outerspace orbiting the sun forever, it turns out we can harness bacteria that live in water by placing water+ bac in bottles and then selling them to each other, and they work. not surprised.
 
Last edited:

jda

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
14,325
Reaction score
22,134
Location
Boulder, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think that the real harm in the hobby is reefing on a screen and asking people to try out things that one will not do themselves. Seems like a cowardly suggestion with no skin the game. It is suggestions like these to toy with the life of a living creature that give all of the ammo that anybody could ever need to stop importing livestock from the ocean.

I will utterly disappointed if the people in charge of this board allow this thread to continue.

BTW - I have no take on fish-in cycles, only that asking the uneducated and inexperienced to experiment is reckless.
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,481
Reaction score
23,570
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
for sure they do not require extra feeding. I have a 14 year nano reef that is coral only. Right now, today, it can handle the # of clownfish that a clownfish-adapted reef can handle, without ramp up.


For a given set of surface area in reefing, its either enough to carry an intended bioload or it does not carry the bioload and the animals die. There is NO ramp up for bacteria to match a bioload, it does not work that way

Stacking bacteria on top of bacteria doesnt increase surface area, so it doesnt actually ramp up to match new fish. wastewater doesnt see new bacteria if we stack new bacteria on top of old...WW only sees new bacteria if we add more surface area/rocks.

surface area underwater, and exposed to home contaminations via open top, maintains its own array of filtration bacteria they do not starve, as forums write. natural feed gets in; gnats, find a way to drown. aerial flotsam, chock full of micro goodies

The reason a no-fish nano can instantly carry fish load is because in reefing we always deal in excessive surface area, and all those spaces are already used by bacteria even without fish. Adding fish simply adds waste that existing bac handle, just fine, there's no more room on the rocks and sand to add more bacteria. Bacteria does not ramp up on live rocks to handle more or less fish, fallacy.

filter bacteria are part of never ending boons and busts that happen in populations regardless of fish in or fish out.

A fallow system doesnt have to re ramp up when its time to add fish back just the same. Bac maintain themselves just fine like they do in nature; without us there to command if they live or die by our api test kits :)

we prove it though in our sand rinse thread: 35 pages in a row we remove whole sandbeds all at once, no ramp up time, and the same fish go back into now rocks-only system. tracked by seneye and mindstream, ammonia levels are the same pre and post sandbed removal because bacteria do not ramp up to match an increased bioload. The present surface area is either enough, or its not. There is no ramp up or starving of cycled bacteria unless we reef in a microbiology lab of negative pressure and zero vectors in. In thousands of sand removal jobs Ive only seen one system using so little live rock I was concerned about surface area/ the rest are overdone surface area.


**filter bacteria colonies, clades, numbers, all shift and are in motion. Things like an over feeding event or overheating event or chilling event cause extra bac to stack up, or slough off, then water shear and vital space competition regulate them back to norms...it’s an active community but a given set of rocks can always take on more bioload than it’s adapted to, we build large threads on this premise.
 
Last edited:

swiss1939

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
May 6, 2020
Messages
448
Reaction score
447
Location
NYC
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think this thread needs to be shut down as that seems excessive over reaction, but i do find validity in the suggestion that the person seeking this test results so aggressively across so many threads might be the person best capable of running this test themselves instead of asking other noobs to do it. You will be doing this topic a favor if you prove scientifically it works. Why won't you run this test yourself instead of repeatedly asking less experienced people to do it for you? You clearly have vested stake in proving this and ending the myth as you state many times. So prove it and end the myth!

I for one think your suggestions are probably right, and would be glad to learn of these proven results, but someone like me is in no position to run this test myself and claim any scientific proof from it.

Side note...i think outside opinion on the morality of this hobby is less concerned with fish in cycle treatment of fish.. and probably way more concerned with harvesting corals and fish from nature at a time where both are suffering the effects of global warming and ocean acidification.
 
Last edited:

Creggers

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
394
Reaction score
507
Location
Baltimore
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think the reason why fishless cycles are so popular is due to the fact that our hobby is frequently inhumane. People buy fish thinking they'll live a year, throw em in some tap water and do very little maintenance and what do you know, they die within a year.

Folks on this site tend to be more passionate about the fish / marine life that they care for. Even if they don't have the same connection that they'd have to a dog, they still take the well-being and health of their wet critters to heart. If there's even a chance that you put undue stress on an animal by rushing to introduce them to a tank, most of us will take the precaution to avoid said stress.

I feel like it's like putting up a fence so you can let your dog outside to run around rather than just tying it to a tree - do they both work? Sure. Is the dog with the full back yard to run around in having a better time? Absolutely.
 

Dom

Full Time Reef Keeper
View Badges
Joined
Apr 29, 2016
Messages
5,720
Reaction score
6,305
Location
NY
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think that the real harm in the hobby is reefing on a screen and asking people to try out things that one will not do themselves. Seems like a cowardly suggestion with no skin the game. It is suggestions like these to toy with the life of a living creature that give all of the ammo that anybody could ever need to stop importing livestock from the ocean.

I will utterly disappointed if the people in charge of this board allow this thread to continue.

BTW - I have no take on fish-in cycles, only that asking the uneducated and inexperienced to experiment is reckless.

OUCH!

I didn't get the impression that the OP was trying to push others into doing something they themselves wouldn't.

I would hope that reefers who are new or who don't grasp the subject matter will take a seat and let the more experienced reefers approach this suggestion.

Be disappointed if you like. But there isn't any harm in the discussion and exchange of ideas.
 

Mkvc

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
200
Reaction score
192
Location
USA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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.
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,481
Reaction score
23,570
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Appreciated

Ive listed non fish ways to prove my claim, wanted to restate nobody here has to harm fish or take reef risks. Im linking threads that directly prove no burning occurs, on top of the countless threads I make for the same matter.

the reason I myself dont do the tests is because Im already certain and instead skip the testing, and make large work threads where peoples tanks are cycled without testing (also claimed dangerous, every rule buck is dangerous, pico reefs were dangerous I have the rc thread links etc) and we remove sandbeds since sandbeds aren't critical in reefing and bacteria dont ramp up. For testless cycling, that wasnt just to cause anarchy its because we dont believe API and have no sub-300$ alternate to actually read ammonia, so we use the time axis off cycling charts dating back to the 50s (runs all wastewater plants etc) and call it a day. and nobody has lost an initial bioload/

we use measures to call a cycle done, just not the common measure. and in that we save money, nobody cycle stalls, nobody loses fish.

Conversely, if bacteria do require ramp up, then we would have dead tanks on the sand rinse thread. I dont own seneye, so I wouldnt test using other ways the outcomes of our threads are all proof needed imo.
 
Last edited:

mijan

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Messages
769
Reaction score
5,701
Location
Boynton Beach, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Interesting to note that the BRS five minute videos endorses this idea. In the cycling video they put 2 clown fish in the tank then add Dr Tim's one and only. Rational being the tank now has, quote, "adequate bacteria for the fish". After that it is suggested to get an ammonia kit and start testing.
 

Arabyps

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
941
Reaction score
5,672
Location
Palm Springs, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@Bulk Reef Supply would also be a suitable venue for testing and proving this theory with an added benefit of a nice video showing the test results!
They have already done videos on this as well as other professionals. As they say in the video over 100 tanks cycled with bacteria in a bottle and never any fish lost.

 

mtfish

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Messages
790
Reaction score
901
Location
CC, texas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Brandon, I disagree with about 80% of the things you post, so not totally against you! But you keep asking hobbyist to conduct experiments like they would be peer reviewed is ridiculous. Perhaps you can go find some university that has too much money laying around to do these crazy ideas. I have done plenty of real research in my time, no one on this board will "prove" anything the way you ask questions. Perhaps we can find a "fish whisperer" who can ask the fish how they really feel.
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,481
Reaction score
23,570
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
mijan


I didnt know that thank you for the input.

Mtfish Im ok with your take on the matter, I relay here what we use in absolutely large work threads where hundreds and hundreds of systems are charted in live time. Once these calls turn bad, Ill expect reports from the actual trenches.

I can also expect lots of critique lacking work threads for me to analyze counter claims, but Ive accepted that.
its peer reviewed or nothin' got it.

What if peers though held the rules for minimum successful reef size...would they have allowed us to go pico? Somebody has to break free I think, when patterns support breaking free of constraints.


We have been ignoring the fact cycling has a Moore's law like computing. we dont have to take 30 days like the old days, although that makes a fine testless stand in.

The major takeaway I want readers to keep from this thread:

the hobby bandwagon is massive and so many characteristics of bacteria are made up to fit test outcomes that we need a fresh start on the rules.

fish-in cycling is spreading disease like a 70s disco but its not burning fish or they'd be burnt, hovering at the top panting for oxygen with gills burned and reddened inflammed, like when an organism has kidney failure. what they dont do is feed, swim, choose a place in the tank to nest and act normal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

A worm with high fashion and practical utility: Have you ever kept feather dusters in your reef aquarium?

  • I currently have feather dusters in my tank.

    Votes: 64 36.8%
  • Not currently, but I have had feather dusters in my tank in the past.

    Votes: 59 33.9%
  • I have not had feather dusters, but I hope to in the future.

    Votes: 25 14.4%
  • I have no plans to have feather dusters in my tank.

    Votes: 26 14.9%
  • Other.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
Back
Top