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

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,493
Reaction score
23,573
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
here's a nice example to test out


from the description alone a specific start date was set, no testing required, her updated animals will live and not be burned. she would have to have a tank that doesnt have any rocks and sand to fail to complete the initial tank cycle, and nobody does that just like they dont add fish without bottle bac anymore.

The initial cycle cannot fail, starve or miss the desired start date if she will just change out water on day ten and go. I could have been pressed for an earlier safe start date (we'd reference Dr. Reef's bottle bac test thread for that brand) but ten is safe in today's boosted world. not any boosted cycle takes longer than ten days to complete unless we're curing out roughshod ocean rocks.


to save utter breakdown confusion, a boosted cycle here is fish plus any source of bac 'boosted' into the system vs waiting for natural inoculations. This includes bottle bac, already live rock, wet sand, reef water etc
 

Thales

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
4,722
Location
SF BA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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.

Beats me. Forums are terrible places to post experimental results, even here where the term 'article' has been watered down, especially if we want to reference them over time. I know someone that tested it once, but didn't write it down.
I think the companies making/selling the products should support their efficacy before we ask hobbyists to do it. I once asked a company that was saying their bio media replaced x amount of rock how they made that determination and was told to stuff it
 

Russ Brue

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
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.

This is an interesting response to this thread. I don't disagree with anything you've said. I do find it a little out of context.

Aside from the all the other joys (and struggles), this hobby is about science to me. The one most common piece of advice I hear is "take it slow". To me this means, only do things you can measure, and be able to measure the effects of these things you do. Do too many at once and its harder to understand the cause/effect of any of them.

I followed along with brandon's salt rinse thread. It's quite an open scientific experiment. While he tends to push things beyond norms or comfortable boundaries, I've never once heard him advocate testing anything to the detriment of one's prized tank or inhabitants (save the lives of the bacteria, I think we all universally treat bacteria as disposable in our tanks, lol)

Some of Brandon's previous posts got me thinking about how much wasted time and effort there is in trying to get this hobby right.

Take these forums. They are filled with people searching for answers. They are also filled with people who have some/most/all of those answers.

Why is this hobby still so danged difficult for the people who haven't figured it out yet (myself included)?

My hunch is that we newbies have not figured out how to be good scientists with our tanks.

Brandon is a mad scientist. I love what he's doing. Am I worried there are some inept people who might take his post as an invitation to start killing their fish? I guess it's possible there are people who would do this. But I don't think this forum is about tackling that type of problem.

If it is, then we should all be talking more about the nature of this hobby being a scientific experiment in our homes. And our choices have consequences.

And for the record, I keep coming back here because there are some really impressive, brilliant (and even professional), scientists who lend their time and expertise to this hobby and us newbies.

If anyone is still reading this, just search for anything by Randy Holmes-Farley. And then check out the people who are asking him really good questions. I don't have other names specifically in mind, but there are many others like him.

My thanks to all of them!
 

Russ Brue

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
6
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is an interesting response to this thread. I don't disagree with anything you've said. I do find it a little out of context.

Aside from the all the other joys (and struggles), this hobby is about science to me. The one most common piece of advice I hear is "take it slow". To me this means, only do things you can measure, and be able to measure the effects of these things you do. Do too many at once and its harder to understand the cause/effect of any of them.

I followed along with brandon's salt rinse thread. It's quite an open scientific experiment. While he tends to push things beyond norms or comfortable boundaries, I've never once heard him advocate testing anything to the detriment of one's prized tank or inhabitants (save the lives of the bacteria, I think we all universally treat bacteria as disposable in our tanks, lol)

Some of Brandon's previous posts got me thinking about how much wasted time and effort there is in trying to get this hobby right.

Take these forums. They are filled with people searching for answers. They are also filled with people who have some/most/all of those answers.

Why is this hobby still so danged difficult for the people who haven't figured it out yet (myself included)?

My hunch is that we newbies have not figured out how to be good scientists with our tanks.

Brandon is a mad scientist. I love what he's doing. Am I worried there are some inept people who might take his post as an invitation to start killing their fish? I guess it's possible there are people who would do this. But I don't think this forum is about tackling that type of problem.

If it is, then we should all be talking more about the nature of this hobby being a scientific experiment in our homes. And our choices have consequences.

And for the record, I keep coming back here because there are some really impressive, brilliant (and even professional), scientists who lend their time and expertise to this hobby and us newbies.

If anyone is still reading this, just search for anything by Randy Holmes-Farley. And then check out the people who are asking him really good questions. I don't have other names specifically in mind, but there are many others like him.

My thanks to all of them!
Oh, and by the way, hello everyone! Pretty sure this is my first post ever to the forum, although I've been a quiet lurker for quite some time now. I've had a 70 gal tank for about 12 years. It started as a freshwater tank, then switched to saltwater (fish only) for about 8 years. I just added my first corals (lps) about 4 months ago.

If you find that I'm posting any nonsense, please try to make your feedback well thought out and kind. I'm really great at receiving feedback, it only makes me better/smarter!
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
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.
Isn't that the point though? That you can use bacteria - and add fish immediately - some people seem to be saying 'no' - others are saying 'yes'. I don't hear anyone suggesting just dropping fish into a tank without some bacterial source (it used to be done that way). I do not understand 'the controversy'. It would take a huge bio load for fish added to a tank to get anywhere near the 2 ppm ammonia levels some people are using to cycle with added bacteria.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
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.

Actually - at the end of the article they recommend keeping the ammonia < 0.25 - though only minimal damage was seen at .57. As to other fish - IDK - there is a similar article using the same concentrations for marine angelfish
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Beats me. Forums are terrible places to post experimental results, even here where the term 'article' has been watered down, especially if we want to reference them over time. I know someone that tested it once, but didn't write it down.
I think the companies making/selling the products should support their efficacy before we ask hobbyists to do it. I once asked a company that was saying their bio media replaced x amount of rock how they made that determination and was told to stuff it
I agree with your philosophy. IMHO, the companies (fritz, etc) - have shown their products work and support their efficacy. The study done here was well controlled, replicated, and used 5 (I believe) identical tank set ups - using a control - and 5 different products - according to bottle directions. There is no doubt that the control tank ammonia did not drop - the treated tanks did. Whether that was because of autotrophs or heterotrophs or a combination - I don't know - but the bottom line - the ammonia was undetectable (from a very high level (2-4 ppm) within 24-48 hours. It would be hard to see how fish in a tank would ever get ammonia levels to this height (unless some of them died). By the way - when this study was designed - there was some research done as to how much ammonia a clown fish produces/24 hours - and again it would be extremely difficult to get to anywhere near toxic levels - say in a 20 gallon tank (with bacteria added). I also agree that there are lots of products (like the one you referenced above) - that do not stand by their 'outlandish' claims.
 

Dallascowboys16

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
62
Reaction score
111
Location
Littleton, CO
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
After reading through this thread I think the real question here is how do you even begin to quantify how much a fish was "harmed" during the fish in cycle. Using modern bacteria in a bottle to start a tank works. It populates a tank with a starter culture of nitrifying bacteria and through experiments documented online as well as anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of hobbyists, a tank can no doubt be cycled very quickly by these products (Still, IMO there is a huge difference between a newly cycled tank versus a matured tank that is ready for whatever you want to put in it. This is a discussion for another day). Back to the question of how much fish are harmed by it, I think you could go many different directions. The most relevant in my opinion is "Are there long term health problems that are caused as a result of living in a cycling tank?" It is very easy to tell if a fish lives or dies during a cycle and I think we can all agree a tank raised clownfish will survive a reasonably well executed fish in cycle using bacteria in a bottle. Where we could stand to learn is what are the effects of this process on the fish long term. Unfortunately I think this is a question that will be left unanswered for quite sometime. It is exceedingly difficult to measure data on a large time scale like we are talking about. Thousands upon thousands of fish would have to be put through fish in cycles and control groups to detect any statistically significant relationship between fish in cycling and mortality (or disease). Heck, It took us hundreds of years to agree upon the cause and effect relationship of cigarettes and lung cancer! This debate of fish in vs fishless will probably never be settled scientifically with close 100% certainty. We are also ignoring the fact that different species have far different tolerance ranges as far as parameters go. Throw a clownfish in a tank with 0.15 ammonia and I almost guarantee he will be fine. Do the same with a yellow tang and I almost guarantee that fish will fall ill. For me, this discussion is the beauty of the aquarium hobby. We all get to be pseudo scientists and uncover information and pass it on. As for my stance on this, I stand in the camp that a fish in cycle is perfectly acceptable as long as you are using proper bacteria supplements and not intentionally using fish as "starter fish" intended to die during the process. Suggesting fish in cycling = animal abuse is pretty absurd. I have always cycled tanks fish in and cannot remember the last time I really even lost one. This is a fun topic to talk about as it is examines one of the core processes of aquarium keeping that is still very much up for debate.
 

Cell

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
14,116
Reaction score
21,727
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Science is not having all the answers, it's about searching for them. It need not occur only in a funded research lab for academia or industry. It can indeed occur here on R2R forums. I applaud those that voluntarily spend the time and/or resources to advance the hobby.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
After reading through this thread I think the real question here is how do you even begin to quantify how much a fish was "harmed" during the fish in cycle. Using modern bacteria in a bottle to start a tank works. It populates a tank with a starter culture of nitrifying bacteria and through experiments documented online as well as anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of hobbyists, a tank can no doubt be cycled very quickly by these products (Still, IMO there is a huge difference between a newly cycled tank versus a matured tank that is ready for whatever you want to put in it. This is a discussion for another day). Back to the question of how much fish are harmed by it, I think you could go many different directions. The most relevant in my opinion is "Are there long term health problems that are caused as a result of living in a cycling tank?" It is very easy to tell if a fish lives or dies during a cycle and I think we can all agree a tank raised clownfish will survive a reasonably well executed fish in cycle using bacteria in a bottle. Where we could stand to learn is what are the effects of this process on the fish long term. Unfortunately I think this is a question that will be left unanswered for quite sometime. It is exceedingly difficult to measure data on a large time scale like we are talking about. Thousands upon thousands of fish would have to be put through fish in cycles and control groups to detect any statistically significant relationship between fish in cycling and mortality (or disease). Heck, It took us hundreds of years to agree upon the cause and effect relationship of cigarettes and lung cancer! This debate of fish in vs fishless will probably never be settled scientifically with close 100% certainty. We are also ignoring the fact that different species have far different tolerance ranges as far as parameters go. Throw a clownfish in a tank with 0.15 ammonia and I almost guarantee he will be fine. Do the same with a yellow tang and I almost guarantee that fish will fall ill. For me, this discussion is the beauty of the aquarium hobby. We all get to be pseudo scientists and uncover information and pass it on. As for my stance on this, I stand in the camp that a fish in cycle is perfectly acceptable as long as you are using proper bacteria supplements and not intentionally using fish as "starter fish" intended to die during the process. Suggesting fish in cycling = animal abuse is pretty absurd. I have always cycled tanks fish in and cannot remember the last time I really even lost one. This is a fun topic to talk about as it is examines one of the core processes of aquarium keeping that is still very much up for debate.

The question you are asking is impossible to answer - except with deduction (about potential long-term damage). On the same subject though - what about the shipping time - in a small bag - full of ammonia, etc - and the debate about 'dripping' - vs just matching temp - and dropping the fish in due to ammonia burn issues.
But - If I put 3 yellow tangs in a 100 gallon tank - with dry rock lets say - and add the appropriate amount of Say Fritz 9000 - My experience is the the ammonia level is not going to be measurable - thus no long-term toxicity. The issue here - is that everyone seems to think its going to be. That may be part of the disconnect between the 2 or 3 (or 4) sides. If I put 300 yellow tangs in the same tank with the same bacteria - there will be problems - no matter what.

To me this is where the do things slowly works best in reefing (i.e. start with 3 small fish - not 300 small fish). No offense to anyone here - some people seem to take this 'slow approach' - as gospel - 'just because slower is better'. I tend to agree - but - traffic in NYC rush hour is slow, a snail is slower and a glacier is even slower. I (personally - and again - no offense) - dont understand these 6-8 week or longer 'cycles'. I think this is part of what @brandon429 Is trying to suggest.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Where can I see that?
If you look at their website - you can read about them - The studies that were done here show that they work - and were replicated. Note - my definition of 'work' is that its possible to add fish at a reasonable stocking density (depending on the product) - within a day of setting up a tank. Now - you might say - where are the controlled replicated studies (except for the one here) -ie. how do we know that we cant just add fish, and water and no bacteria - and the cycle would be the same. 1. First the studies done here. 2. If in fact there is no benefit to the products - there is also no benefit to people waiting 6 or 8 weeks for a tank to cycle right?
 
OP
OP
brandon429

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,493
Reaction score
23,573
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Good job team in sourcing out lethality levels, some sort of written tolerance levels for marine fish that helps as a starting point


I noticed in articles about marine ammonia the tenths ppm sustained condition is mentioned, a lot

more than one author covers it

when I see youtube videos about stalled cycles, its in the tenths

all of them, few ever mention the hundredths ppm and thousandth ppm active nh3 conversion rates because those are oceanic measures (again we dont see the tenths ppm in ocean data in fringe reef zones, its not common, ever)


so seneye shows us this MASSIVE conflict of data, someone is a decimal or two off in calcs on what marine tanks do
because no seneye shows tenths ppm, ever

try and find us one seneye reading where tenths is maintained more than a few hours, or once.

just because seneye disagrees with most of the notions about what ammonia does in reefing doesnt make it bad, or suspect, it is ushering in new detail.

its not the only item either, Ive been told Hach makes a several-hundred dollar lab meter for nh3 that can be used to get real data, the most up to date measures we can get.


Prior seneye reads showed the system never getting to the tenths ppm, and if prior posted data shows clownfish tolerate up to half a ppm fine (and dont show symptoms, I dont think so) then we wont be reaching those levels in reef tank fish in cycles with bottle bac, we'll be reaching maximum hundredths level, which is all we can find on any of the thousands of seneye logs

Aiming these conflicting reports, reads and statements about what ammonia does at each other is a primary intention of the thread, to call out those major variances we accept depending on the decade as whole truth.

Due to changes in updated ability to measure ammonia, ever hitting tenths ppm even once has proven to be totally elusive data, but we accepted that measure commonly in all years prior. People did the best they could with the measurements available

Seneye might be wrong but it'll take another test garnering this many similar reads to do so, no titration kit is pulling it off.
 
Last edited:

K7BMG

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
1,898
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The question you are asking is impossible to answer - except with deduction (about potential long-term damage). On the same subject though - what about the shipping time - in a small bag - full of ammonia, etc - and the debate about 'dripping' - vs just matching temp - and dropping the fish in due to ammonia burn issues.
But - If I put 3 yellow tangs in a 100 gallon tank - with dry rock lets say - and add the appropriate amount of Say Fritz 9000 - My experience is the the ammonia level is not going to be measurable - thus no long-term toxicity. The issue here - is that everyone seems to think its going to be. That may be part of the disconnect between the 2 or 3 (or 4) sides. If I put 300 yellow tangs in the same tank with the same bacteria - there will be problems - no matter what.

To me this is where the do things slowly works best in reefing (i.e. start with 3 small fish - not 300 small fish). No offense to anyone here - some people seem to take this 'slow approach' - as gospel - 'just because slower is better'. I tend to agree - but - traffic in NYC rush hour is slow, a snail is slower and a glacier is even slower. I (personally - and again - no offense) - dont understand these 6-8 week or longer 'cycles'. I think this is part of what @brandon429 Is trying to suggest.

One thing to considder here, and I know I am on the opposite side of the fish in cycle.

There is the potential of the bottled bacteria having nothing viable in it.
Then you can have a real problem.
The new person could have a real issue.
They most likely will never see the visible signs of distress soon enough, nor have the knowledge of how do deal with the situation.

So I guess it should be said we need more information to be out there.
There is little to nothing about the following days after introduction.
Most threads and the wonderfull no falt ever YouTube videos basically are add water rock fish bactera and all is well.

I think all but one video and absolutly no LFS person ever explanes the importance of follow up testing and observation.

So you fish in folks.
What is your routine once the fish and bacteria are in?
Testing schedule.
What all do you test for?
Do you have prepared saltwater on hand for a immediate water change.
Do you have Prime or othe conditioner on hand.
Do you have more bacteria in a bottle on hand?

We/they all will not have a Seneye so what about the people using API or other unreliable test kits.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
One thing to considder here, and I know I am on the opposite side of the fish in cycle.

There is the potential of the bottled bacteria having nothing viable in it.
Then you can have a real problem.
The new person could have a real issue.
They most likely will never see the visible signs of distress soon enough, nor have the knowledge of how do deal with the situation.

So I guess it should be said we need more information to be out there.
There is little to nothing about the following days after introduction.
Most threads and the wonderfull no falt ever YouTube videos basically are add water rock fish bactera and all is well.

I think all but one video and absolutly no LFS person ever explanes the importance of follow up testing and observation.

So you fish in folks.
What is your routine once the fish and bacteria are in?
Testing schedule.
What all do you test for?
Do you have prepared saltwater on hand for a immediate water change.
Do you have Prime or othe conditioner on hand.
Do you have more bacteria in a bottle on hand?

We/they all will not have a Seneye so what about the people using API or other unreliable test kits.

My routine - is I watch the tank. I personally have never had a problem - I also start with a small bio load. And add things slowly. I have used Stability, as well as Fritz. Stability requires a daily addition for 7 days - Frankly - I usually use a little more than required. I do have a bottle of Prime. I do have more bacteria on hand, FWIW - I also have with certain tanks - a piece of rock from an old tank that of course has some extra bacteria on it.

FWIW 2 - I am not recommending that anyone not use ammonia to cycle a tank or whatever method they like to use.
 

Biglew11

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
1,577
Reaction score
1,882
Location
New York
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
just my .02 cents, but my next start up cycle will be along the lines of water rock sand, and bottle bac. dose ammonia about a week or so to monitor how fast it's processed. i don't have a seney i'm ok with a "false" positive as these test kits measure total ammonia meaning almost none of it is in its toxic free form. other nutrients i'd look at would be nitrites, nitrates
if nitrites also rise then fall to 0 then tank is safe for fish. only monitoring nitrates to see if i should do a water change to bring them down

https://www.hamzasreef.com/Contents/Calculators/FreeAmmonia.php may or may not be accurate but it certaintly gives an idea of how little free amonia is in a tank even when you are using an api or simular test kit.
 

Thales

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
4,722
Location
SF BA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If you look at their website - you can read about them - The studies that were done here show that they work - and were replicated. Note - my definition of 'work' is that its possible to add fish at a reasonable stocking density (depending on the product) - within a day of setting up a tank.

Which one are you referring to?


Now - you might say - where are the controlled replicated studies (except for the one here) -ie. how do we know that we cant just add fish, and water and no bacteria - and the cycle would be the same.
I prolly would not say that
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,790
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Which one are you referring to?



I prolly would not say that
Those were to what I was referring - I personal - being almost as skeptical as you :) - tend not to believe corporate websites - in favor of independent research - I wasnt able to find much/any. There is some new information on the nitrogen cycle - that suggests the bacteria we have often 'relied on' - might not be the actual bacteria consuming nitrogenous compounds in our tanks. PS - I like your sense of humor
 

ingchr1

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 9, 2018
Messages
1,486
Reaction score
1,108
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Would this method be pertinent to the discussion?

 

RichReef

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
3,341
Location
Wilmington, DE
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ok so I am confused. Did they all die or survive lol.
Or did you mean you just lost the snails.

I'm sorry I could have written that better but using a phone it sometimes doesn't come off correct.

I lost all those. The items in the list are what survived. I'll edit the post. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mastering the art of locking and unlocking water pathways: What type of valves do you have on your aquarium plumbing?

  • Ball valves.

    Votes: 47 48.0%
  • Gate valves.

    Votes: 52 53.1%
  • Check valves.

    Votes: 22 22.4%
  • None.

    Votes: 26 26.5%
  • Other.

    Votes: 9 9.2%
Back
Top