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

[MnFish1]

Al right then. Lay out your experiment in detail. What parameters will you look at precisely. What will be the "proof" that you will determine. I don't mean peers like other hobbyist, I mean peer review that you would go through to publish a paper in a real scientific journal, just like you advance. I just don't see how you will come to a conclusion on the way you asked the question. It is like asking if something causes cancer. What other variables come into play? How long will you keep the study going to determine if it does or not? I guess my real question after this long post is why? Just because you can do an experiment, doesn't mean you should. Why would you want to "possibly" hurt an animal if it is not necessary to start up an aquarium. Seems to me you are taking one step forward and two steps back.

Without wanting to really debate this - it seems that you're ignoring the elephant in the room. When fish are shipped to an LFS - there are estimates that 30% (minimum) are DOA - at least at some bad LFS - bad shippers. You are now trying to criticize people that are using fish to cycle an aquarium? You can not use a large blue tang to cycle a 10 gallon tank. You can use a small clown fish to cycle a tank - with no damage - the studies have been published previously on this site - there is no reason not to do so. Except - some people seem to want to take months to do something that takes days. Here is the proof. The TTM method. If you change your water often enough - you can cycle a tank with fish in the tank. There is no biological filtration in the TTM method right? so - do it on a smaller scale

 

[MnFish1]

This is a terrible, and probably borderline unethical experiment that no one should take on.

What we do know
1. Ammonia kills fish
2. Fish produce ammonia through waste
3. Without a sufficient bacteria population ammonia will build up in the water
4. At some point the ammonia will become toxic to fish. Now the exact point at which it is poisonous to fish may vary and could be up for debate

It is very easy to conclude that someone COULD add fish day one with some bottled bacteria, and with enough bacteria they could keep ammonia low enough for fish to survive. Now what exactly a "low enough" level of ammonia is, I don't know, and don't really care to find out.

In that case you should be much against the TTM method of QT?

 

[92Miata]

Quite the contrary, why would anyone wait 4-6 weeks when they could add a proven product that populates beneficial bacteria and add fish instantly?

I've cycled 7 tanks with bacteria and fish successfully. The ammonia spike was minor and short as was nitrite. Haven't lost a fish yet.

I don't believe either way is wrong, but fishless cycling IMO is most definitely old school.

And people forget that all of these fishless cycle methods end up with a tank that has spent weeks at 50+ ppm nitrates from all the ammonia dosing and is ripe for algae blooms the second you start adding phosphate.

The tanks I have done the bottlebac->fish quickly have matured much quicker than my older tanks that did the long cycle.

 

[92Miata]

It has been proven so many times. fish suppliers ship the fish as fast as possible to prevent it he harmful effect of ammonia build up in the bags. This is a multi million dollar industry and if fish is not harm by the ammonia then they would have use longer transportation time for cheaper cost.

Literally no one is arguing ammonia isn't harmful.

Fish tanks aren't shipping bags.

 

[MnFish1]

The funny thing about that situation was I didn't really take action for hours when it was 0.05. It wasn't until I saw the spike in ph to 8.4-8.5 when I could never get my ph above 7.8 previously that really caught my attention.

Truth be told - the levels of ammonia that are 'lethal' are higher than what is reported. Google the research

 

[Biglew11]

It has been proven so many times. fish suppliers ship the fish as fast as possible to prevent it he harmful effect of ammonia build up in the bags. This is a multi million dollar industry and if fish is not harm by the ammonia then they would have use longer transportation time for cheaper cost.

Literally no one is arguing ammonia isn't harmful.

Fish tanks aren't shipping bags.

Was thinking the same thing. We don't cycle shipping bags.

 

[BeltedCoyote]

What exactly is the point of this thread? OP has touted that it was originally because no ammonia kits aside from seneye are remotely accurate. Then it shifted to we need hobbyists to do the “research” that has been performed by the “bottled bac” manufacturers. Then it was bottled bac is bad because it rushes things. Now we acknowledge that bottled bac might be okay. And all the while, after all the rants about no tests understanding ammonia (oxidized or otherwise) the individual keeping this going has no chemistry background. And advice was given such that new people in the hobby shouldn’t even bother getting any ammonia test kits. What is the point of this? This is why I call semantics. There has not been a true commonality to the line of reasoning in this Thread. And I’m not saying a topic like this shouldn’t be investigated. But this is literally just one dude declaring we are all working on this “project” when the project itself has yet to be consistently codified. I’m not saying anything bad about you OP. But this is like the governmental approach to the current pandemic. Literally changing the message every time someone says something in response to your claims and provides, if not peer reviewed data (which I will concede is lacking in our hobby), enough anecdotal information that it should at least be taken seriously.

I’m not trying to argue with you OP. I will admit that due to my training in philosophy my brain hurts trying to follow your sporadic reasoning. That said, if this were a truly organized line of inquiry, devoid of your constantly shifting subjective input in favor of objective data, it would indeed be beneficial. But I don’t see anything resembling that in the multitude of pages this thread has generated. And if we want to understand ammonia objectively, and this benefits the hobby, we need to clean this up.

 

[BeltedCoyote]

We can say, at least anecdotally, with bottled bac, adding fish right away has no longer caused fish death. And we can ignore the fact that quick start tank cycling tends to lead to more problems with diatoms, dinos, etc. because the focus is fish harm.

you have claimed that no ammonia test kits are accurate. Yet anecdotally, and even objectively, there is enough data from industry leaders (both bottled bac manufacturers and retailers such as brs) to indicate that even if tests aren’t as accurate as you would wish, people do this, use these kits which show no ammonia, and the fish survive and thrive.

so this is really why I don’t understand this whole thread. You’re not wrong. On a hobbyist level, there’s a lot to be desired with kits. But that doesn’t warrant you saying things like the worst advise is to buy an ammonia test kit, when that just about all new reef keepers have to have any idea if their cycle is on track.

basically your thread alarms me because you are not providing any substantial evidence for anything that might be a better way to do things than the tools we have access to at this point in time. That and your premise has shifted radically any time someone has tried to provide data that is what you ask for.

Again, I applaud your spirit of investigation. But that’s not what’s happening here.

 

[MnFish1]

We can say, at least anecdotally, with bottled bac, adding fish right away has no longer caused fish death. And we can ignore the fact that quick start tank cycling tends to lead to more problems with diatoms, dinos, etc. because the focus is fish harm.

you have claimed that no ammonia test kits are accurate. Yet anecdotally, and even objectively, there is enough data from industry leaders (both bottled bac manufacturers and retailers such as brs) to indicate that even if tests aren’t as accurate as you would wish, people do this, use these kits which show no ammonia, and the fish survive and thrive.

so this is really why I don’t understand this whole thread. You’re not wrong. On a hobbyist level, there’s a lot to be desired with kits. But that doesn’t warrant you saying things like the worst advise is to buy an ammonia test kit, when that just about all new reef keepers have to have any idea if their cycle is on track.

basically your thread alarms me because you are not providing any substantial evidence for anything that might be a better way to do things than the tools we have access to at this point in time. That and your premise has shifted radically any time someone has tried to provide data that is what you ask for.

Again, I applaud your spirit of investigation. But that’s not what’s happening here.

At least a part of what he is saying is something like this: 'There is no reason to buy an ammonia test because they are often innacurate'. And that its much easier to just look at your tank determine whether there is an 'ammonia problem'. I have never used an ammonia test kit myself. I have set up 50 tanks with bottled bacteria and fish. I have never 'cycled' a tank for months or weeks - and I fully admit this is completely anecdotal. My opinion there are a lot of myths concerning cycling, etc. My second opinion. Bacteria are bacteria. Whether 1,000,000,000 bacteria are added from a bottle - or develop over 6 weeks - in the end there are still 1,000,000,000 bacteria note the number was just for illustrative purposes).

 

[BeltedCoyote]

At least a part of what he is saying is something like this: 'There is no reason to buy an ammonia test because they are often innacurate'. And that its much easier to just look at your tank determine whether there is an 'ammonia problem'. I have never used an ammonia test kit myself. I have set up 50 tanks with bottled bacteria and fish. I have never 'cycled' a tank for months or weeks - and I fully admit this is completely anecdotal. My opinion there are a lot of myths concerning cycling, etc. My second opinion. Bacteria are bacteria. Whether 1,000,000,000 bacteria are added from a bottle - or develop over 6 weeks - in the end there are still 1,000,000,000 bacteria note the number was just for illustrative purposes).

which is still a dangerous game for someone who is just starting out. I have no doubt that people with more experience can get by without testing ammonia. But for someone who has never dealt with cycling a tank at all, coming here, seeing someone who is reputable say “ammonia kits are useless, just eyeball it” and provide no further information on how to do that... that’s where I have qualms.

maybe I’m weird because I’m newer and view this community as a resource which will be around for quite a while and be utilized by new hobbyists when they try their hands at keeping marine life. Declaring that every ammonia kit is wrong, and no one truly understands ammonia, etc, but not providing any further guidance for the supposed “alternatives”. That’s what I find alarming about this.

 

[92Miata]

which is still a dangerous game for someone who is just starting out. I have no doubt that people with more experience can get by without testing ammonia. But for someone who has never dealt with cycling a tank at all, coming here, seeing someone who is reputable say “ammonia kits are useless, just eyeball it” and provide no further information on how to do that... that’s where I have qualms.

maybe I’m weird because I’m newer and view this community as a resource which will be around for quite a while and be utilized by new hobbyists when they try their hands at keeping marine life. Declaring that every ammonia kit is wrong, and no one truly understands ammonia, etc, but not providing any further guidance for the supposed “alternatives”. That’s what I find alarming about this.

I couldn't disagree more.

Telling a newbie that they should not only buy, but trust, a test that we know gives false positives, and doesn't have nearly the resolution to be useful doesn't help them.

The only time ammonia tests are useful is if you're dosing ammonia, and dosing ammonia in an uncycled reef tank is hugely counterproductive when we know that properly stored/transported bottled bacteria not only works, but is highly effective.

Put the bottle bacteria in. Give it a day with your skimmer off. Put a fish in. You'll never have any ammonia, and you won't have huge residual nitrate to have to deal with. You won't have all the weird new tank issues people have because dosing tons of ammonia screwed up their nutrient ratios.

And you won't be sitting there at 4 months waiting to turn your light on - you'll have Coraline and corals and a functioning reef tank.

 

[mitch91175]

Stumbled on this thread. I’m in the process of setting up a 240g FOWLR. Been running now for a week. Put in rock that dried out from a breakdown a few weeks earlier. Didn’t clean the rock just aquascaped, added some sand that literally was used for cigarettes. I took the cigarette butts out, rinsed the sand until mostly clear, added it to the tank.

I have an ammonia test kit but it’s expired and not interested in buying any reagents for it. Tank will be fine. Added some TurboStart and a few small pieces of rock from my main DT.

Tank now has 5 fish in it doing fine. Just as a precaution I dosed Amquel. Not worried about a healthy fish going into the system.

No scientist here but too many things can become over complicated because of a lack of understanding about proper husbandry once your system is running. Not everything works for everyone no matter what scientific explanation or anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise.

 

[K7BMG]

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.


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.

So if you've ever posted to another person that fish-in cycles are harming fish, how do you know? groupthink?

If we took an ammonia reading during the fish-in cycle and it showed some free ammonia yet the fish behaved well, fed well, swam normally, didnt die after days in the claimed burn condition, and we can find the same test kit indicating free ammonia in other fully matured reefs, does that mean fish-in cycling burns fish?


additional questions before anyone can prove anything here: whats the maximum nh3 typical clownfish and gobies can tolerate in marine systems?

are the ammonia testers we use in the hobby able to reliably measure those levels?

Once you find those answers, test without fish. Use liquid ammonium chloride, a tester for ammonia, some bottle bac. If your nh3 reaches what you found to be ld50 lethality levels, fish-in cycling harms fish.

Fish-in cycling harms disease vectoring, for sure. But burning animals? are these burnt? You can burn a three hundred dollar anemone and it still acts normal for half a year?

Bio-spira works great

I just started a new tank a little over a week ago. I started with all dry rock and new sand. I added a bottle of Bio-Spira and put fish and coral the same day. Never saw any ammonia and fish and coral seem healthy.

www.reef2reef.com

Well I read your post but did not have the desire to read the following 10 pages.

But the gray are of your discution in my opinion was the adding a fish to cycle the tank, without the bacteria.
This scenario killed many many fish.
Moving forward a decade or two and with the bottled bacterias of today I agree this may not be the case any longer.

But I will never do this. I will always do a fishless cycle.
Ammonia is not a good thing.
Not for fish nor human.
If you feel small amounts of ammonia are ok then by all means
I suguest the following experiment be done for yourself.
Take a covid mask that we all get to wear, every hour put a few drops of ammonia on it.
I doubt you will die but I wonder how you will feel.

I did read a few posts and saw that though you have the question, your unwilling to do the work yourself on the answer.
Just curious as to why?
Why should others be responsible for answering your thoughts and questions?

 

[brandon429]

i think you are having to guess that bottle bac allows a little free ammonia, due to not having test kits that would indicate otherwise.

it isn’t fathomable to most that ammonia hungry bac in suspension are still ammonia hungry bac eating up waste

Dr Reef showed a lag time for some strains until feed activates them; tank dilution and low starting bioload is how they reach the covered stage without burn, or any symptoms anyone here can link in example tanks.


we have some seneye posts from prior page about how high ammonia got during a fish + bac cycle.

the whole hobby isn’t able to remark about free ammonia accurately in a fish in plus bottle bac cycle except seneye owners, consider reading just the prior two pages.

Show me a marine cycle where someone used fish, no bac source, and dry surfaces. You guys keep getting confused on things people dont do in reefing nowadays, anyone new enough to be FIC has also been sold bottle bac along the way.



the #1 thing we’re concerned about in fish + bottle bac cycling is disease vectoring, which has symptoms and threads we can source.

 

[K7BMG]

i think you are having to guess that bottle bac allows a little free ammonia, due to not having test kits that would indicate otherwise.

it isn’t fathomable to most that ammonia hungry bac in suspension are still ammonia hungry bac eating up waste

Dr Reef showed a lag time for some strains until feed activates them; tank dilution and low starting bioload is how they reach the covered stage without burn, or any symptoms anyone here can link in example tanks.


we have some seneye posts from prior page about how high ammonia got during a fish + bac cycle.

the whole hobby isn’t able to remark about free ammonia accurately in a fish in plus bottle bac cycle except seneye owners, consider reading just the prior two pages.

Show me a marine cycle where someone used fish, no bac source, and dry surfaces. You guys keep getting confused on things people dont do in reefing nowadays, anyone new enough to be FIC has also been sold bottle bac along the way.


show me a link of a failed or partly burned fish in cycle, to reinforce the frequency at which this is stated to occur (this is the last eight pages , work link examples)


in every marine fish in cycle you can see in google searches, they have bacteria. You can’t find anyone doing dry + fish anywhere near here or today’s date / bet.

since nobody is doing that, don’t assume we’d start here.

the #1 thing we’re concerned about in fish + bottle bac cycling is disease vectoring, which has symptoms and threads we can source.

I agree with most everything you are saying dont get me wrong here and I am not arguing just for the sake.

But in all forms of life, Dogs, Cats, Snakes, Rabbits, Horses, and whatever we have as pets.
None of these creatures will present noticeable symptoms before it gets to a serious or more critical point in the stage of the ailment.
Does this mean they felt perfect and not suffering in some way until it was noticed by its human.

I do not need scientific proof of this as I have lived it since I started with pets.

These land walkers are far easier to diagnose than the swimmers we keep.
So in a way I feel your bold denying that the new way of fish and bacteria will cause no harm. There is a spike of ammonia with this method and the fish will be affected. Thats my point and my only point.
Will the effects be permanent or fatal with the new method.
Doubtful but its there.
Just like drops of ammonia on a covid mask will effect the individual that wears it.

 

[MnFish1]

which is still a dangerous game for someone who is just starting out. I have no doubt that people with more experience can get by without testing ammonia. But for someone who has never dealt with cycling a tank at all, coming here, seeing someone who is reputable say “ammonia kits are useless, just eyeball it” and provide no further information on how to do that... that’s where I have qualms.

maybe I’m weird because I’m newer and view this community as a resource which will be around for quite a while and be utilized by new hobbyists when they try their hands at keeping marine life. Declaring that every ammonia kit is wrong, and no one truly understands ammonia, etc, but not providing any further guidance for the supposed “alternatives”. That’s what I find alarming about this.

The problem with 'some' ammonia kits is that they continue to read low levels leading people to think their cycles are extending months and months because they 'still have ammonia'. I didn't mean to imply that a person Shouldn't use ammonia - to cycle - just that I (anecdotally) have not found it necessary - It was just my opinion. I will agree with @Brandon42 - that 'most people 'do not' understand ammonia and cycling - one of the main problems - for new people - is not following instructions at least from my reading of the forums. By the way - It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to take some bottled bacteria - and fully stock a tank. When I start a tank - I put in perhaps 1-1.5 x the usual dose - and a very very small fish load - and gradually build up. In that type of case - there is no need for 'ammonia' testing - since the load should be so small there almost 'can't' be an ammonia problem. I agree that people with nano - tanks, small tanks, etc - or those doing TTM or something without a biofilter - need ammonia tests - even though they have problems. Sorry this was so long

 

[BeltedCoyote]

The problem with 'some' ammonia kits is that they continue to read low levels leading people to think their cycles are extending months and months because they 'still have ammonia'. I didn't mean to imply that a person Shouldn't use ammonia - to cycle - just that I (anecdotally) have not found it necessary - It was just my opinion. I will agree with @Brandon42 - that 'most people 'do not' understand ammonia and cycling - one of the main problems - for new people - is not following instructions at least from my reading of the forums. By the way - It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to take some bottled bacteria - and fully stock a tank. When I start a tank - I put in perhaps 1-1.5 x the usual dose - and a very very small fish load - and gradually build up. In that type of case - there is no need for 'ammonia' testing - since the load should be so small there almost 'can't' be an ammonia problem. I agree that people with nano - tanks, small tanks, etc - or those doing TTM or something without a biofilter - need ammonia tests - even though they have problems. Sorry this was so long

I agree that there are ineffective ammonia tests kits. I dealt with one myself. I then found a kit that was reasonable effective. Enough to indicate that my tank had indeed cycled.

I also agree that the hobby needs better means to measure ammonia. I do not think we should be telling new hobbyists to ignore ammonia testing all together unless we have a better method. And I could be wrong, but I’m not sure we do.

 

[brandon429]

Im shocked at the sheer number of new fish-in cycles we can read about today, where everything is working fine, and thats just at r2r not counting other sites. amazing trend unfurling here, we couldnt get genie back in if we wanted to with the highest passion possible, its out and running amok


but all fish are acting fine in literally every case, Im sold its not harming them, but brook and crypto are like vultures on a branch about to swoop down

we have several species of fish trackable for fish-in cycles, its not just clowns


we can't sample from that many types of fish with varying tolerances and find them all acting fine and still think they're burnt, bottle bac is powerful stuff. We've been managing wastewater for what a hundred years now, glad they finally got able to bottle + sell these universal organisms

 

[teller]

What exactly is the point of this thread? OP has touted that it was originally because no ammonia kits aside from seneye are remotely accurate. Then it shifted to we need hobbyists to do the “research” that has been performed by the “bottled bac” manufacturers. Then it was bottled bac is bad because it rushes things. Now we acknowledge that bottled bac might be okay. And all the while, after all the rants about no tests understanding ammonia (oxidized or otherwise) the individual keeping this going has no chemistry background. And advice was given such that new people in the hobby shouldn’t even bother getting any ammonia test kits. What is the point of this? This is why I call semantics. There has not been a true commonality to the line of reasoning in this Thread. And I’m not saying a topic like this shouldn’t be investigated. But this is literally just one dude declaring we are all working on this “project” when the project itself has yet to be consistently codified. I’m not saying anything bad about you OP. But this is like the governmental approach to the current pandemic. Literally changing the message every time someone says something in response to your claims and provides, if not peer reviewed data (which I will concede is lacking in our hobby), enough anecdotal information that it should at least be taken seriously.

I’m not trying to argue with you OP. I will admit that due to my training in philosophy my brain hurts trying to follow your sporadic reasoning. That said, if this were a truly organized line of inquiry, devoid of your constantly shifting subjective input in favor of objective data, it would indeed be beneficial. But I don’t see anything resembling that in the multitude of pages this thread has generated. And if we want to understand ammonia objectively, and this benefits the hobby, we need to clean this up.

Im shocked at the sheer number of new fish-in cycles we can read about today, where everything is working fine, and thats just at r2r not counting other sites. amazing trend unfurling here, we couldnt get genie back in if we wanted to with the highest passion possible, its out and running amok


but all fish are acting fine in literally every case, Im sold its not harming them, but brook and crypto are like vultures on a branch about to swoop down

we have several species of fish trackable for fish-in cycles, its not just clowns


we can't sample from that many types of fish with varying tolerances and find them all acting fine and still think they're burnt, bottle bac is powerful stuff. We've been managing wastewater for what a hundred years now, glad they finally got able to bottle + sell these universal organisms

I really do not understand why this person has a excellence title.
English is not my first language, but I can read english quite well but still I do not understand most of his posts. I believe he does that just for people think he is a genius....
Like the posts I mentioned he changes his mind constantly, than say something he cannot prove, than moves on....
Who gave him an excellence badge?
Related to the business.... How many people lost fish on qt due to ammonia poisoning.... This is a really thing.

 

[Cstar_BC]

For me the proof is literally in how you do a fish in cycle - use “hardy” fish .

If fish in cycles weren’t detrimental to fish then everyone in the hobbywould be starting their cycles with your expensive designer super finicky fish.

I’m not bashing fish in cycles - I did it , but I also remember how many mollies or guppies got sacrificed for my lack of patience.

Just because not all fish die or we’ve seen it work does not mean it should be touted as best practice or even an option really .

We know better now and have countless hobbyists who have a much better success rate with the bottle of Bac and dosing ammonia / table shrimp / ghost feeding