Should we rethink and refine means and methods for cycling tanks?

[Forty-Two]

Now we are getting to meat and potatoes. Haha alots been covered but it did take 11 pages to get to what my main goal actually was when I started this thread. I feel its highly beneficial to sufficiently stock tank with healthy corals and what they bring in from thriving tank, from day its scientifically cycled using the data.
I hope to show that in first experiment tank.
You nailed it.
I've said it a ton throughout the 11 pages that if I tank is fully capable of handing said bioload. Why would we not stock it for the diversity alone.

I’m very interested in the results. What do you propose? What size of tank are you thinking? At what point will you add the corals? From where will the corals come? Maybe there should be a density goal? Corals/gallon? What species will you use?

sorry for the rapid fire questions but I’m very curious about this and would love to see it as a structured experiment.

 

[Forty-Two]

When you're able to prove what 'biodiverse' is, and that as time goes on, tanks tend to become less biodiverase as compared to more - I'll understand better. There is not unlimited niche's in the tank for every single bacteria that added - just like if you added 200 corals to 100 gallons - in 6 months - there would likely not be 200 corals, there would be 50. Biodiversity in the tank is a myth, IMHO. And - there is no way to effectively measure it. For example I did the DNA test - the standard way - my tank was not that 'biodiverse'. After swishing my hand over the rocks a couple times - my tank was among the most 'biodiverse'. So - how do we tell?

This is a good question. We need to think carefully about how we define bio diverse and even more careful about how we measure it. There is so much we don’t know already.

One of the products I would like to test is AF’s ‘life source’. Theoretically this has the potential to add a considerable amount of biodiversity to a tank - but we have no real way to test it other than anecdotal evidence/observation.

This is really a big topic - for which I’m unqualified for . Doesn’t mean we can’t build the knowledge however.

 

[Lasse]

a proper scientific cycle consists of ammonia peaking and dropping back down to closest to 0.

As I said before - the right is that also NO2 is zero The whole cycle NH3/NH4 ->NO2 ->NO3 That´s a proper scientific nitrification cycle.

Most Hobby test detect total ammonia (NH3 +Nh4) - Seneye only detect NH3. At pH 8 - NH3 is around 5 % of total NH3+NH4. At pH 8.5 NH3 is about 15% of total NH3+NH4 (total ammonia)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Just a Wrasse.]

I found it convenient that overdriving api ammonia test kits and causing a days-long delay is certain by following the current verification rules.


you know which thread I’m about to post -


5 minute case study

New Cycle - Seneye vs API

Hello All, Have just started to cycle a new DD ReefPro 900. Am using Fritzzyme Fishless food and Turbo Start and am 2 days in. I have dosed twice with Fishless food on the back of the seneye readings which are as follows: But the API result seems to be showing a different story. I`ve seen a...

www.reef2reef.com

results of that thread: if you own api, your initial bac were dead, you buy three more bottles during the wait and are ready by day fifteen or twenty hesitantly, if you haven’t dosed prime in reaction to the first delay, or as dechlor for the source water, in which you will wait till November.


but on same cycling tank if you own seneye you can see that every fish + bottle bac cycle decried by the masses as a mean burn was actually ready on day one, minute one, after adding bottle bac like Fritz to the water. Dr Tims bac works this well too, they all seem to. The risk was disease import, not failure to filter.

Simple mis testing is leading the masses around by the ring nose circularly into unneeded purchases— for twenty five years. Thats a lot of cash outflow from the trained buyers right to the resolved, calm, predictive, certain, deliberate sellers who are never caught stalling.

Intresting!

 

[Dan_P]

Thanks Dan. I was thinking about grabbing hanna ammonia checker with the nitrite checker for more control to cross refference to. I have to be honest ive seen alot of inaccuracies with seneye on other levels so will be awesome to have different tools to cross refference to. One thing the seneye has been really good for me with is tracking ammonia trend. Regardless of what its actually picking up it shows the peak trend and down tracking of ammonia and thats really only how im applying its use here.
I'm glad your seeing it now it kinda took several pages to get to what im hoping to see more of. Just how much bioload can a fully cycled/livestock ready tank carry. And how much ammonia will it take to get there. How fast and full can i stock it. What will the data show along the way and after being stocked and stable. I do plan on using healthy corals, rubble, plugs, discs they are stuck on in my experiments as well as I believe it will be super beneficial here. Especially with getting surfaces covered with desirable things like corals and 0 uglies. At least that's what im seeing in recent tank transfer. I want to see how it plays out in new fully cycled tank this time.

The total ammonia test I was refering to is either the modified API test or the Red Sea test, though I am not sure about the Red Sea test. The Hanna Checker for the job is the low range silicate tester.

@taricha briefly looked at the ammonia oxidizing capability of his aquarium and I believe samples of his sand bed. I am looking at the same thing for Bio-Spira biofilms on glass microscope slides and slides coated with aragonite sand. This gives me the cababilty to measure the ammonia consumption for a fixed surface area.

Calculation of bioload capability is known. Ditto for how much ammonia to expect from fish. I don’t know about other organisms like snails and crabs. I wonder if you can estimate the initial capability of a new system from the rate of ammonia consumption per hour and compare that produced by inches of fish.

By the way, as the system ages ammonia is consumed by photosynthetic organisms and probably other bacteria. This would explain why keeping nitrates up in a new system is difficult: the ammonia oxidizing bacteria are getting less ammonia with the light bioload. Nitrates won’t increase until the bioload is large enough to produce an abundance of nitrogenous waste.

 

[LRT]

I’m very interested in the results. What do you propose? What size of tank are you thinking? At what point will you add the corals? From where will the corals come? Maybe there should be a density goal? Corals/gallon? What species will you use?

sorry for the rapid fire questions but I’m very curious about this and would love to see it as a structured experiment.

I'm thinking 10 gallons. If we can put solid #'s to the questions asked we should have at least a good base we can scale up from.
I'm taking corals from recent instastock shroom lagoon tank. This tank recently went through full system transfer and is what got me thinking about all this to begin with. I'm seeing some pretty amazing things with this transfer tank that im hoping to replicate with a brand new start up tank.

 

[LRT]

The total ammonia test I was refering to is either the modified API test or the Red Sea test, though I am not sure about the Red Sea test. The Hanna Checker for the job is the low range silicate tester.

@taricha briefly looked at the ammonia oxidizing capability of his aquarium and I believe samples of his sand bed. I am looking at the same thing for Bio-Spira biofilms on glass microscope slides and slides coated with aragonite sand. This gives me the cababilty to measure the ammonia consumption for a fixed surface area.

Calculation of bioload capability is known. Ditto for how much ammonia to expect from fish. I don’t know about other organisms like snails and crabs. I wonder if you can estimate the initial capability of a new system from the rate of ammonia consumption per hour and compare that produced by inches of fish.

By the way, as the system ages ammonia is consumed by photosynthetic organisms and probably other bacteria. This would explain why keeping nitrates up in a new system is difficult: the ammonia oxidizing bacteria are getting less ammonia with the light bioload. Nitrates won’t increase until the bioload is large enough to produce an abundance of nitrogenous waste.

I love it man!
I have enough fully seasoned 5" tiles i could cover the bottom floor of a 10 gallon new start up tank easily if needed.
Idea of how much ammonia would need to be initially dosed to reasonably stock a 10 gallon tank after cycle?
How many square inches of cured tile area id need to cycle initial ammonia dose to stock tank?
This could be invaluable and bet we could come up with a really good way to estimate the initial capability of a new system from the rate of ammonia consumption per hour and compare that produced by inches of fish. Among other things.
Can you also give us an idea how fast we can expect biofilm to cover surface areas in inches per day?
This is getting super interesting now.

 

[LRT]

As I said before - the right is that also NO2 is zero The whole cycle NH3/NH4 ->NO2 ->NO3 That´s a proper scientific nitrification cycle.

Most Hobby test detect total ammonia (NH3 +Nh4) - Seneye only detect NH3. At pH 8 - NH3 is around 5 % of total NH3+NH4. At pH 8.5 NH3 is about 15% of total NH3+NH4 (total ammonia)

Sincerely Lasse

Hi Lasse the goal will be to fully cycle both ammonia and nitrites back to 0.
However I may be using Randy's graphs as safeguards to determine whether of not its safe to throw a cpl critters in along the way. He's done the work and feel like we can safely and responsibly work inside of his work here.

 

[MnFish1]

What about the beneficial bacteria from healthy tanks.
I have turned unhealthy systems into healthy fully functioning systems and could literally watch some of the transformations taking place in corals and on surfaces.
Maybe we should be looking at thriving systems and introducing healthy corals from those systems. Ive personally seen the benefits of doing this.
I think alot of this may be handy in future experiments.

I was thinking about this - Like I said - from my reading and experience, if you add bacteria to an 'established', i.e. not new, system, one of 2 things will happen - either the old bacteria that are established already will fight off the new bacteria - or the new bacteria will take over the old ones. ASSUMING that all of the potential niches are filled in the 'established tank'.

So - in the question you ask I guess one of 2 things could happen - either the new bacteria you put in was 'better' than the old or the changes were coincidence.

This is why I wish there was more information out there from Aquabiomics. For it may well be that certain bacteria are 'bad' for a tank and are 'reparable' (somehow).

 

[MnFish1]

The experiment I would do is:

1) Take a tank, fill it with Saltwater
2) put in a filter (a simple filter). Add a heater
3) put in some dry rock if you want
4). Add Fritz 9000 on day 1 per instructions
5). Add Fish, and coral (maybe small frags from an established tank). on the second day - according to instructions
6). Do the usual cycling measurements - ignore the results UNLESS they get to toxic levels (i.e. levels that are either causing symptoms AT ALL - or measured)

Do simultaneously, a tank with Dr. Tims, liquid ammonia, and the recommended testing. Chart the results, and the timing thereof. Compare the 2 as to when 'according to conventional cycling' its ok to add fish.

You could also do a simple experiment to verify that that Fritz 9000 was functioning by seeing if it can neutralize 1 ppm ammonia in a different (small system - like a Tupperware with a rock and ayirstone

 

[LRT]

I was thinking about this - Like I said - from my reading and experience, if you add bacteria to an 'established', i.e. not new, system, one of 2 things will happen - either the old bacteria that are established already will fight off the new bacteria - or the new bacteria will take over the old ones. ASSUMING that all of the potential niches are filled in the 'established tank'.

So - in the question you ask I guess one of 2 things could happen - either the new bacteria you put in was 'better' than the old or the changes were coincidence.

This is why I wish there was more information out there from Aquabiomics. For it may well be that certain bacteria are 'bad' for a tank and are 'reparable' (somehow).

For sure it makes sense. I have been following alot of same articles and discussion along with you.
I'm approaching it like maybe an emphasis should be on putting in the right bacteria. Im saying an abundance of bacteria from sources taken from clean, healthy thriving systems. Systems that have matured and made it through the uglies and etc.
I cant say good because we don't know what that even really means. And who knows if how much of what we consider "good" may actually become bad.
It really would be awesome to get @AquaBiomics in on this. Its only a theory in my head but I've been curing my rock and dialing my system for a minute now. Everytime I clean it up and make improvements it makes leaps and bounds as compared to old system. Even if new systems are started up using my rock.
There has to be something to establishing healthy system and using it to start new tanks. Maybe it could be valuable to look closer at that and what bacteria is in abundance.

 

[brandon429]

LRT I want you to see something

Nitrogen cycle: nitrites stuck

My 20 gallon tank has been cycling for 2 months and a half now, and somehow for 2 months ammonia was always there (1 ppm constant), i used a prawn and fish flakes for the first weeks and stopped because ammonia wasn't going away. only 2 weeks ago all the ammonia suddenly dropped to 0 and...

www.reef2reef.com

old cycling proponents are caught there being completely wrong even though none have posted yet, they’re coming though.


that cycler was trained by old cycling science, can you see it in his description details


look how the first umpires were not using old cycling science to unstick him, and I’ll guarantee you Lasse will write sixteen paragraphs on why that tank is not cycled, it’s stuck, the test kit says so. Doesn’t matter if prime was dosed the test says plus nitrites. All actions must halt until it does not.


that powerful work thread is about to get pounced by mass typing, completely untrue assessments from old cycling, take a look at it before its ruined as a relevant proofing post.


old cycling science never cares to assess surface area physics or known completion timelines that are sooner than they’re used to


old cycling science is 100% fear based hesitation that inherently claims all cycling charts are wrong. It takes a lot of guff to claim those neat and handy charts are wrong, but they do. Where in old cycling science does it give an objective point we’d know the cycle is done, even if an unverified test kit disagrees? there are no times, old cycling science says: wait longer.


new cycling science= re read howaboutme’s example post I linked prior to see when this tank above was ready. All tanks using the same group approach to the cycle have similar ready dates per approach, in this case a fish food wait cycle, = done in thirty days or less. there is a linked compliance time among tanks, not a variable compliance time.


old cycling science misleads by teaching that each tank cycles on its own random date, which is untrue. Each tank cycles by a predetermined date relative to which one of the three methods was selected.

And ditch the non digital kits.


old cycling science harms the hobby by instating pure hesitation and fear immediately. Make one wrong prep move: ur cycle is now stuck heh. Disease prep is exactly the cycling stage he’s at, so ClownW can see we work in repeating themed patterns.

 

[MnFish1]

LRT I want you to see something

Nitrogen cycle: nitrites stuck

My 20 gallon tank has been cycling for 2 months and a half now, and somehow for 2 months ammonia was always there (1 ppm constant), i used a prawn and fish flakes for the first weeks and stopped because ammonia wasn't going away. only 2 weeks ago all the ammonia suddenly dropped to 0 and...

www.reef2reef.com

old cycling proponents are caught there being completely wrong even though none have posted yet, they’re coming though.


that cycler was trained by old cycling science, can you see it in his description details


look how the first umpires were not using old cycling science to unstick him, and I’ll guarantee you Lasse will write sixteen paragraphs on why that tank is not cycled, it’s stuck, the test kit says so. Doesn’t matter if prime was dosed the test says plus nitrites. All actions must halt until it does not.


that powerful work thread is about to get pounced by mass typing, completely untrue assessments from old cycling, take a look at it before its ruined as a relevant proofing post.


old cycling science never cares to assess surface area physics or known completion timelines that are sooner than they’re used to


old cycling science is 100% fear based hesitation that inherently claims all cycling charts are wrong. It takes a lot of guff to claim those neat and handy charts are wrong, but they do. Where in old cycling science does it give an objective point we’d know the cycle is done, even if an unverified test kit disagrees? there are no times, old cycling science says: wait longer.


new cycling science= re read howaboutme’s example post I linked prior to see when this tank above was ready. All tanks using the same group approach to the cycle have similar ready dates per approach, in this case a fish food wait cycle, = done in thirty days or less. there is a linked compliance time among tanks, not a variable compliance time.


old cycling science misleads by teaching that each tank cycles on its own random date, which is untrue. Each tank cycles by a predetermined date relative to which one of the three methods was selected.

And ditch the non digital kits.


old cycling science harms the hobby by instating pure hesitation and fear immediately. Make one wrong prep move: ur cycle is now stuck heh.

There is no such thing as 'old cycling science' per se. Its a made up word. Right? There are probably 20 or more 'methods' that people use to cycle aquaria. Bottled bacteria has been available for YEARS - and many people (myself included) have used it and adding fish the within a day of setting up the aquarium. Many people call THAT the 'old way' (i.e. using livestock is cruel etc) - you need to do it with ammonia, etc and wait and wait. Some people use shrimp - and no bacteria and wait and wait, etc etc etc. Some people add fish alone - and wait (no additional bacteria).

You have a thing about 'non-digital kits' - but in reality, Seneye - and other digital kits also have issues. Even Dan (I believe) unless I misunderstood - said that Seneye can't be used for research - because of various issues.

IMHO - there is no 'harm' - (I'm purposefully not using the word 'cycling') - in starting a tank using bottled bacteria and adding livestock. Fish and coral. Coral will also process ammonia to a degree. IMHO - there is no 'harm' in starting a tank by adding ammonia then testing ammonia, then nitrite and nitrate and considering the tank "cycled" once the first 2 are zero and there is nitrate present. There are many ways to start a tank.

What I don't understand is that logic that 'old cycling science' is harmful? I don't see a problem with using API tests - if you understand their limitations. Except for a very short time - I have never owned an ammonia test kit (or a nitrite kit) and I've started many many aquariums thoughout the years. I guess I must have known about the 'new cycling science' 30 years ago?

 

[MnFish1]

old cycling science misleads by teaching that each tank cycles on its own random date, which is untrue. Each tank cycles by a predetermined date relative to which one of the three methods was selected.

Would you agree that differences in amount of ammonia, oxygen, flow, temperature, etc can influence nitrification? If so, since each tank can cycle at a 'different rate' Right? Would the amount of bacteria added (or a different type) - influence the length of a cycle?

One issue that is ignored a lot of the time is 'user error'. Adding too little bacteria, adding too much ammonia, using expired bacteria, etc etc etc. IMHO - every single cycling problem does not relate to 'testing error' - though testing error obviously can also be caused by 'user error'.

 

[Big Smelly fish]

I find this thread very interesting, read the first 7 pages and taking a break from reading. I started the old school way of setting up and cycling 49 years ago with under gravel filters , dead coral skeletons and a seed from an another tank. Along with damsels fish to feed the cycle. Did the three test ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. It always followed the rules as to what was expected , 1st ammonia , 2 nitrites and last nitrates. it never stalled and have been successful. I stopped with the fish during cycle many years ago not to hard the fish in anyway and went to just adding food instead. So I don't see a problem doing it the old school way and have always advised newcomers to do it this way.

Now to the New school, I haven't tried it yet , but do find it interesting and am totally open to it. So when you start a tank up with bottle bacteria. are you 100% sure you are not just doing to the livestock the same thing we where doing to the damsels years ago using them to cycle and possibly doing some harm. Do you constantly monitor ?

 

[brandon429]

We monitor and gain pattern where seneye exists, the others just guess and not one seneye on a display has posted a fail under the new rules thats key.


We don’t have to test every tank, because we all use one of three major cycling approaches and the ready dates are set per approach, there isn’t variance we were once taught.

we all stack rock in the middle of swirling wastewater. That alone sets timing outcome maximums


just about every cycler does a feed approach, that hones completion time even more accurately.


a cycling charts ammonia drop line is a timeline of wait that equalizes differences among bottle bac, none of this detail can be found in old cycling training they are exclusively based on subjective parameter reports by non digital test kits, old cycling science disavows linked compliance times among cycle groups.


there is a reason all cycling charts show ammonia compliance by day ten yet all aquarium forums report wildly different compliance dates, and that reason is __________________________.


cliffhanger, only my cycling friends know the answer

 

[MnFish1]

I find this thread very interesting, read the first 7 pages and taking a break from reading. I started the old school way of setting up and cycling 49 years ago with under gravel filters , dead coral skeletons and a seed from an another tank. Along with damsels fish to feed the cycle. Did the three test ammonia, nitrite and nitrate. It always followed the rules as to what was expected , 1st ammonia , 2 nitrites and last nitrates. it never stalled and have been successful. I stopped with the fish during cycle many years ago not to hard the fish in anyway and went to just adding food instead. So I don't see a problem doing it the old school way and have always advised newcomers to do it this way.

Now to the New school, I haven't tried it yet , but do find it interesting and am totally open to it. So when you start a tank up with bottle bacteria. are you 100% sure you are not just doing to the livestock the same thing we where doing to the damsels years ago using them to cycle and possibly doing some harm. Do you constantly monitor ?

I do not monitor. I have never seen 'harm'. And - its not new - I've been doing it since bottled bacteria came on the market.

I do not know what 'new cycling science' means. A lot of 'new cycling science' is that there is no such thing as a stalled cycle - nitrite testing is not important and that ammonia test kits are often incorrect - so if the tank has been set up for x period of time, its 'cycled'. But - it seems like there are still 20 methods to get to that endpoint of a 'cycled tank'

 

[LRT]

Yeah the terms being coined for certain things really are silly.
At the end of the day nothing has changed or is changing..
We are technically proving the old school method of "cycle" for "livestock ready" works and works super well.
If anything we may be able to prove just how super well and see just how using different methods may actually benefit the "cycle for fish ready" and maybe give folks a better idea of how much and how soon they can actually stock a tank.
I see countless threads on boards of tanks fully cycled, collecting algae with hardy any livestock in them.
What are we waiting for here in these tanks? Are we waiting for this bioload to magically appear on its own overnight?
Could it actually be more beneficial to reasonably stock these tanks. Using data we collect here. And get this macrobiodiversity in them to achieve what we are waiting for to magically appear?
@MnFish1 I almost posted your exact thoughts on how crazy it actually is that any of this is still under debate haha
I think folks are super nerdy, geeked out on certain things and highly passionate about it. Which makes it fun and interesting for me.
I think where @brandon429 is mostly passionate is the stuck cycles.
For validation I have seen in my own observance how the color charted kits really can show extremely high levels of ammonia, stuck, all the while seneye was tracking ammonia at super low concentrations. Sometimes in the thousandths. Same tank at same time. Ive seen others post same observances in real time so that much I can at least cosign. I have actually gone back and forth quite a few times on the validity and accuracy of some results even with Brandon in alot of threads. As Dan said the slides do age and degrade over time and it does need to be re calibrated for correct readings quite often. In @NeonRabbit221B work thread he did show inaccuracies and even issues with calibration but in controlled dosing threshold of the inaccuracies where lower than some ammonia levels that some folks are dosing reefs with to keep fuge healthy. It will be interesting to see how seneye tracks out with hanna checker.
All seneye is really good for, but really good for is showing the peak ammonia(whatever that may be) and tracking it back to 0. To me thats all I need to see to consider tank "cycle for fish ready" Let's see what hanna says with it in real time.

 

[brandon429]

Old cycling science is also responsible for puppy mills, paper cuts and general public malfeasance

 

[Big Smelly fish]

Old cycling science is also responsible for puppy mills, paper cuts and general public malfeasance

I've been accused of a lot of things in my lifetime, those three are new ones , LOL