Please help me solve my nitrite mystery!

[Harold999]

Sure. And I definitely recommend against :"Dumping up to 1-2 ppm ammonia on a daily base in your tank for weeks or months"

Who does that? Why? Seems nuts to me.

If you want to mimick real fish in a fishless cycle you'll need to add ammonia each day (multiple times over the day in small amounts). I think this comes close to 1-2 ppm daily.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If you want to mimick real fish in a fishless cycle you'll need to add ammonia each day (multiple times over the day in small amounts). I think this comes close to 1-2 ppm daily.

IMO, that is not needed.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

If you want to mimick real fish in a fishless cycle you'll need to add ammonia each day (multiple times over the day in small amounts). I think this comes close to 1-2 ppm daily.

Let's explore what Dr Tim Hovanec recommends for Fishless Cycling:

https://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/fishless-cycling/
Day 1 2-3 ppm
Day ~5 1-1.5 ppm
Days 20+ 0.5 to 0.75 ppm once every few days
Day? Test for full cycling by adding 2-3 ppm ammonia

Thus, it appears one is adding on the order of 7-10 ppm total ammonia. That would give 25 to 36 ppm nitrate. Not a big deal, IMO.

Thus, I do not believe your assertion that even after a 90% water change, that nitrate could possibly be too high.

 

[Harold999]

Let's explore what Dr Tim Hovanec recommends for Fishless Cycling:

https://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/fishless-cycling/
Day 1 2-3 ppm
Day ~5 1-1.5 ppm
Days 20+ 0.5 to 0.75 ppm once every few days
Day? Test for full cycling by adding 2-3 ppm ammonia

Thus, it appears one is adding on the order of 7-10 ppm total ammonia. That would give 25 to 36 ppm nitrate. Not a big deal, IMO.

Thus, I do not believe your assertion that even after a 90% water change, that nitrate could possibly be too high.

Depends on how long a cycle takes. Some will wait till nitrites are also zero and that can take months, using way more ammonia then.
By the way, about the theory that nitrites (testing) aren't important. The scenario that nitrites will rise over 5ppm within the first couple of weeks after you added fish is not unthinkable, and in that case the (full) cycle stalls. You'll never get rid of nitrites then.
Personally i think that waiting for nitrites also to reach zero is best, because it's your only guarantee that the cycle is fully completed.
You're in the dark if you don't test for nitrites.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

OK, we've both made our points and the readers can decide for themselves whether to monitor nitrite. :)

 

[brandon429]

Harold, cycling doesn’t work that way at all, it has exacting dates we can start (how do reef conventions all line up to start on time for decades)

its not a random wait time at all. The bottles of bacteria have a date on the label and it averages ten days or less, that’s how long bottle bac cycles take. Live rock transfers

for proof, notice how every stalled cycle here was not stalled and we list the exact date they can begin reefing, in a world where 3x wait and no specific start date rules all

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/how-to-unstick-any-seemingly-stuck-cycle.742202/



would you estimate that by page 100 our results will be different than first ten pages or the exact same, anyone who owns a reef tank can post a request for a start date *before* the reef is even built and we will name that specific date, and nitrite will never stall anything. That’s how cycling works or our threads would be of dead tanks, angry reefers


we are able to name the exact start date for any reef tank *because* reef conventions never have start time issues, we took their ways. All cycling rules given to us before new cycling rules went into effect had the very coincidental effect of scaring everyone into buying bottle bac over and over, from the fear of a stall


based on that link above, has any cycle ever stalled or did api say it did and we bought it lock, stock and barrel?

 

[brandon429]

Also

i don’t fault anyone for relaying to peers that nitrite matters and that it can stall a cycle. We have been directly told that by bottle bac sellers

For two decades they tell us that, has it worked well to sell us bottle bac?


what does our thread show though? Can you really break firm rules in reef tanks for pages and those rules still emerge as valid, legit, accurate? Those tanks are happy and alive, nobody’s cycle stalled


Work threads are wonderful, they’re referees for claims. Reef tanks are far too sensitive to be lucking into the logged outcomes, it seems a new rule set is in play.


it would be awesome if peers relayed that part at the same rate


Azenkendae will never, ever, ever relent from months waiting until nitrite is zero. I hear they’re nominating him to manage all future MACNA start dates. Macna will need to rent the convention hall now for ninety days before the start date lol, no tractor pulls or art shows while a bunch of tanks waiting for nitrite compliance are in tow.


forum cyclers are given opposite rules that sellers use for cycling. Creates a buying impulse and market gradient for peace of mind based purchases, break free from that control. Don’t relay buyers rules to other cyclers Harold relay what you find to be true, from logged work.

 

[Azedenkae]

Depends on how long a cycle takes. Some will wait till nitrites are also zero and that can take months, using way more ammonia then.
By the way, about the theory that nitrites (testing) aren't important. The scenario that nitrites will rise over 5ppm within the first couple of weeks after you added fish is not unthinkable, and in that case the (full) cycle stalls. You'll never get rid of nitrites then.
Personally i think that waiting for nitrites also to reach zero is best, because it's your only guarantee that the cycle is fully completed.
You're in the dark if you don't test for nitrites.

I agree 100% with this. Aquariums are dynamic systems that progress very differently from person to person, given the many variables that could come into play. Sure, one should not need to measure certain parameters in theory, but there will always be outliers. And given the lack of difficulty in measuring and tracking parameters, versus the headache one might experience when things do go wrong and troubleshooting is necessary.

Case in point, I was setting up an aquarium and had so much trouble with it. Theoretically, it should work fine - I had plenty of biomedia for my nitrifiers. But if I had not been tracking parameters closely, I would not have been able to really realize the issues I found and rectify them. From seemingly dud bottled bac products, to apparent effects of light on inhibiting nitrification that would normally not happen for most tanks.

So even if it ends up unnecessary, so what. It's just a few test kits and a bit of time.

Though I will say this - I think Dr. Tim is not correct with the 5ppm limitation, at least for saltwater systems.

The few studies I read has quoted higher concentrations of ammonia and nitrite needed to inhibit nitrification, though due to the lack of 'relevance' to reef systems (studying waste water treatment plants, studying species not necessarily the ones we try to seed our tanks with, etc.), I've always just kept these studies at the back of my mind.

However once I got my aquarium going, I found that nitrifiers at least from Fritz can easily oxidize 8ppm ammonia without much issue or slow down, same with at least 20ppm or so nitrite. So it seems like the true 'cut-off' for what really inhibits at least some nitrifiers is far higher than 5ppm.

Just my two cents.

 

[LRT]

@revhtree @Billldg @redfishbluefish @Peace River

Id ask that you all have a real good look at this thread. Particularly at everything Randy discusses here. From there I'd ask that you take another clean hard look at how what Randy says directly correlates to the applications I described in my means and methods thread and clean the means and methods thread up.
Its an absolute shame that certain members where allowed to misguide, dismiss, derail, demean, slander, belittle, attack, take out of context, and basicly troll members that did not agree through 50 pages in one of the most popular, informational and helpful threads we have had on the discussion in a long time. And it was done just for the sake of doing so!
I dont want the thread opened back up. I dont have the time or energy to go through all that again.
But folks need to know there are other options for cycling tanks and my reef is living proof that we absoloutely can test for ammonia while cycling tanks. More precisely by using small measured feedings and building bioloads more effciently. Look really close at Randys discussion here he touches on dosing ammonia at high doses. We discussed how it may likely even be counter productive to do so in a tank common reefers are setting up to handle 1 or 2 fish.
Why would we allow certain members to dismiss others ideas if they don't agree?
Especially when there are safe, smarter, more efficient and precise ways we can approach cycling.
That's all I tried to discuss in my thread-
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/s...e-means-and-methods-for-cycling-tanks.865644/
I'm going to let the readers "decide for themselves" here.
@fishguy242 @danieyella @F i s h y @Pico bam @Erin O @James_O @brandon429 and everyone that followed found the means and methods thread useful and provided pertinent information to the thread.

 

[fishguy242]

Sorry LRT,i am going to bow out, i bit my tongue too many times in the other one...;)
great info ,and some are you kidding me posts...:rolleyes:
Sorry ...:cool: