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

[LRT]

This is an important distinction IMO. Lasse has 50 fish in his tank? 80 gallons?
That’s a bunch of fish. How long did it take to stock all those fish? Bunch of coral too. Well established tank.

If someone bought all those coral and fish at once then stocked their New tank, would it crash? New sand, new rock, no bio filter except coral. Add bottled bacteria and call it good? Not sure.


I have never been to a Macna or reef related trade show. In my head I’m picturing mostly coral vendors? Do theses type of shows have fish also?

Lol before the thread was derailed we where actually trying to lock down and dial in numbers to how many fish and such.
Still haven't gotten a definitive answer to that.
Seems it will always be subject to user as well.
Somehow along the way I think it has been spun into irresponsible stocking of a tank as well.
It would be absoloutely insane for reefers to even attempt that based on the cycling science and what we are trying to prove.
Id love to hear everyone's thoughts on how many fish would be reasonable for 10 gallon tank so we had a basis to start from.
Nobody ever said we would be irresponsibly stocking a cycled tank although that's what some have tried to imply.
What we said is based on science of fully functioning, cycling tank we are going to get it stocked.

I'm still 100% sure it will be in record time based on the data ive observed

 

[Aqua Man]

How many fish would one consider to be in a reasonably stocked 10 gallon tank?

Not sure. Kinda depends on the fish. How about a pair of skunk clowns. Pajama cardinal and goby or blenny.
4 fish
To me that’s plenty. I’m scared of overstocking though. Still learning.

 

[LRT]

Def something I'll need to think about as after experimental tanks are done i will have to house them in one of my 2 current tanks.
I dont have clown pair for tank 2 yet and have been wanting to grab a blenny.

 

[MnFish1]

How many fish would one consider to be in a reasonably stocked 10 gallon tank? We asked that in first cpl pages let dial a number in.
Pretty sure I know the answer to this question but how fast do you think you could stock that many fish into one of your fully functioning totally stuffed coral tanks if it was a 10 gallon?
I know the answers to the rest of the questions. I feed my shrooms, critters and corals mysis and roids almost daily.
How fast a dry rock bottle bac tank will be able to cycle that is yet to be seen by me.

Have you read the bacteria in a bottle myth or fact thread? They were able to process 4 PPM ammonia in I believe 24-48 hours. So - I guess - it would be the number of fish that would produce 4 ppm Ammonia in 24 hours or less.

BUT - I think we're talking apples and oranges again. And either I'm being completely unclear or something.

The point about the coral and dry rock was not necessarily to 'skip a cycle' - in fact, I said I would add bottled bacteria. It was that the 'uglies' are not related to 'chemicals' or micro diversity - but rather 'open surface area'.

The point I was making about @Lasse's comments was that I agree with him that it would be a much bigger 'risk' stocking a tank full of fish. And that a lot of your comments seem to refer to moving coral from one tank to another - which although that CAN be a risk is extremely small IMHO.

Here is my 'summary' so it's more clear - and not responding to multiple people's posts - in order of DECREASING 'safety'.

1. Its possible to add fish, coral and live rock (assuming there is no dying stuff on the rock) - into a clean tank with no issue. (i.e. transferring a tank from one to another)
2. Its possible to add Live rock and corals to a tank - with minimal to no issue
3. Its possible to add Live rock, corals and fish to a tank with some risk, depending on the bioload
4. Its possible to add dry rock, and multiple corals to a tank with small risk.
5. Its unlikely to be able to add dry rock with multiple corals and fish except a very small bioload fish wise - without problems. (the small bioload is @Lasse's method, from my understanding.
6. Its possible to add Dry rock, bottled bacteria and Fish and coral on day 1 with a risk

Those are my thoughts. I'm not recommending any of those approaches. The reasoning? Bacteria is bacteria. It will process ammonia. If I were going to do ANY of those approaches - I would probably add bottled bacteria. If I was adding fish in addition to other things, I would use a higher dose. Hope this makes it clearer

 

[ReefGeezer]

I fully intend to do at least 2 tanks.
I really wish I would have been diligent in taking notes and collecting data the last cpl years. Ive built and torn down 2 whole entire systems as well as countless quick cycle tanks along the way to house corals.
Always the same recurring science being proven through them all. Just a little tighter, quicker and better along the way.
What I haven't done is dry rock.
Having said that I am following a few dry rock bottle bac tanks, a cpl full of sps, utilizing the exact same instastock after cycle method.
Really I just want to see what happens with my own eyes and record some data.
I have to be totally honest when I say after seeing some of these dry rock tanks. I'm not sure much is going to change from live ocean rock to dry rock besides maybe initial cycle time.

I think you are right that not much will change. The result of the denitrification process is inevitable regardless of how it is started. Unfortunately, how the process was started may have impact later in the form of algae and other pesky issues normally referred to as the "uglies". I'd like to see if a group could figure out how to create a MATURE system, without going through a year or more of this ugliness. Lasse hits on this issue some, but I'd like to see it taken farther. I'd like to see if there is a new paradigm rather than just splitting hairs how to start a nitrogen cycle or the value of testing its progress. For example... and I'll admit these are "out there" but... Could you start a tank without cycling at all if no fish are introduced and only photosynthetic corals were stocked? Could small amounts of ammonia be dosed to provide the nitrogen for those corals and/or their dependent algae? Once stocked in that manner, could fish be slowly added to provide the nitrogen input the corals need?

 

[MnFish1]

Nobody ever said we would be irresponsibly stocking a cycled tank although that's what some have tried to imply.
What we said is based on science of fully functioning, cycling tank we are going to get it stocked.

I think I have read every post - I'm not sure I heard anyone imply irresponsibly stocking a tank. What again you're missing - (Sorry- IMHO) - is that there is NO definition of a fully functioning cycling tank. Without that - the rest is meaningless again - IMHO. My assumption was that you were/are suggesting that its possible to have a 'cycled' tank (ie no ammonia, nitrite and some nitrate) in a shorter period of time. As Most, if not all people have suggested - thats certainly possible.

Here is one example of what I mean. Take A tank - 100 gallons with a functioning biofilter, live rock and 5x5 inch tangs. ammonia - 0, nitrate 0, nitrate 5. Its been running like that for 5 years. I would suggest thats 'fully cycled' to nearly everyone's definition right? Now drop a dead tang into the tank - what will happen? Anything? Now drop 3 dead tangs into the tank. Will there be an ammonia spike? Other deaths? a cascading mess? IDK - but lets add 5 dead tangs. Will that? etc etc. It all comes down to 'bioload' in the end as compared to the amount of things that remove ammonia, etc (bacteria, algae, corals, etc etc).

 

[MnFish1]

I think you are right that not much will change. The result of the denitrification process is inevitable regardless of how it is started. Unfortunately, how the process was started may have impact later in the form of algae and other pesky issues normally referred to as the "uglies". I'd like to see if a group could figure out how to create a MATURE system, without going through a year or more of this ugliness. Lasse hits on this issue some, but I'd like to see it taken farther. I'd like to see if there is a new paradigm rather than just splitting hairs how to start a nitrogen cycle or the value of testing its progress. For example... and I'll admit these are "out there" but... Could you start a tank without cycling at all if no fish are introduced and only photosynthetic corals were stocked? Could small amounts of ammonia be dosed to provide the nitrogen for those corals and/or their dependent algae? Once stocked in that manner, could fish be slowly added to provide the nitrogen input the corals need?

I answered your question above (IMHO)

 

[brandon429]

yes to all three. thread examples exist for each one as well.

just feed the corals though, they get whole nutrition that way and the system bacteria get ammonia via respiration waste from a bunch of collective respiring organisms in the system, no direct ammonia dosing as the sole feed. if you want to supplement with it though, a large thread exists for dosing raw ammonia into reefs as base fertilizer.

 

[Aqua Man]

What we said is based on science of fully functioning, cycling tank we are going to get it stocked.

Second part to your title, Refine the methods of cycling a tank. No ammonia is needed!!! That’s the method I’d like to see refined.
Add phytoplankton, pods and macro.

Have you read the bacteria in a bottle myth or fact thread? They were able to process 4 PPM ammonia in I believe 24-48 hours. So - I guess - it would be the number of fish that would produce 4 ppm Ammonia in 24 hours or less.

From that thread, fritz turbo start is the bacteria I would want. The fish number is hard to quantify. Doesn’t ammonia production depend on how much food is added? Bio load is the fish only? Coral are consumers of ammonia ?

 

[MnFish1]

Second part to your title, Refine the methods of cycling a tank. No ammonia is needed!!! That’s the method I’d like to see refined.
Add phytoplankton, pods and macro.

From that thread, fritz turbo start is the bacteria I would want. The fish number is hard to quantify. Doesn’t ammonia production depend on how much food is added? Bio load is the fish only? Coral are consumers of ammonia ?

Yes - corals consume ammonia. Yes - to a large degree most of the ammonia depends on how much food is eaten. HOWEVER, much like people - when fish are not fed - they catabolize their other tissues - perhaps fat first, then muscle, etc - and of course - that produces ammonia as well

AND PS - yes - fritz Turbo seemed to outperform

 

[ReefGeezer]

I answered your question above (IMHO)

Sorry. I was giving examples of what questions might be ask in the process of creating a new paradigm. I wasn't necessarily asking anyone in particular.

 

[brandon429]

I volunteered an answer as its handy patterning to relate questions about this setup to threads that have measured the items in question, we may want later to link them to check for patterns in outcome.

 

[Reefahholic]

Bacteria is the key to a fast easier cycle and gives you the upper-hand through the ugly stage. Their ability to consume nutrients much faster and in much greater quantities than algae is monumental.

 

[LRT]

yes to all three. thread examples exist for each one as well.

just feed the corals though, they get whole nutrition that way and the system bacteria get ammonia via respiration waste from a bunch of collective respiring organisms in the system, no direct ammonia dosing as the sole feed. if you want to supplement with it though, a large thread exists for dosing raw ammonia into reefs as base fertilizer.

The semantics are insane here.
And getting quite comical at this point.
Funny thing is I'm truly not coming into this blind. Folks may or may not remember
I started my system with crushed dead coral in a cpl tables. I actually set up a few quick cycle tanks full of it using both rubble and bottle bac. Sure its not dry rock but...
100% positive I got the answers for all the questions but one.
How fast can I responsibly do this with dry rock bottle bac based on the science. Thats all im lacking haha.
We can go around and around in circles until it's out of everyone system I guess but at the end of the day.

2 instastock after cycle tanks are going to happen. Data will be recorded. And the folks that see the significance in that will hopefully be able to use it

 

[LRT]

Have you read the bacteria in a bottle myth or fact thread? They were able to process 4 PPM ammonia in I believe 24-48 hours. So - I guess - it would be the number of fish that would produce 4 ppm Ammonia in 24 hours or less.

BUT - I think we're talking apples and oranges again. And either I'm being completely unclear or something.

The point about the coral and dry rock was not necessarily to 'skip a cycle' - in fact, I said I would add bottled bacteria. It was that the 'uglies' are not related to 'chemicals' or micro diversity - but rather 'open surface area'.

The point I was making about @Lasse's comments was that I agree with him that it would be a much bigger 'risk' stocking a tank full of fish. And that a lot of your comments seem to refer to moving coral from one tank to another - which although that CAN be a risk is extremely small IMHO.

Here is my 'summary' so it's more clear - and not responding to multiple people's posts - in order of DECREASING 'safety'.

1. Its possible to add fish, coral and live rock (assuming there is no dying stuff on the rock) - into a clean tank with no issue. (i.e. transferring a tank from one to another)
2. Its possible to add Live rock and corals to a tank - with minimal to no issue
3. Its possible to add Live rock, corals and fish to a tank with some risk, depending on the bioload
4. Its possible to add dry rock, and multiple corals to a tank with small risk.
5. Its unlikely to be able to add dry rock with multiple corals and fish except a very small bioload fish wise - without problems. (the small bioload is @Lasse's method, from my understanding.
6. Its possible to add Dry rock, bottled bacteria and Fish and coral on day 1 with a risk

Those are my thoughts. I'm not recommending any of those approaches. The reasoning? Bacteria is bacteria. It will process ammonia. If I were going to do ANY of those approaches - I would probably add bottled bacteria. If I was adding fish in addition to other things, I would use a higher dose. Hope this makes it clearer

I've done better and have done a bunch of experiments on the side with crushed coral. Not dry rock.
Let me ask you something.
You would continue to add bottle bac to a tank thats fully cycling given bioload?
Id advise against that unless your prepared for unstable alk and ph swings. Ive seen it a few times now.
Unless we aren't talking about a fully stocked tank of corals?

 

[Reefahholic]

2 instastock after cycle tanks are going to happen. Data will be recorded. And the folks that see the significance in that will hopefully be able to use it

Already been done before. Nothing new.

 

[attiland]

I just don’t get it what is it to rethink? You put your rocks and sand it add water. Add bacteria or don’t add bacteria. Add sources of ammonia and wait till no3 appear.
Are we rethinking when is it ready? But we know this ready when no ammonia but some nitrate. The difference is two weeks on top.
biodiversity is important but not part of cycle at least not in a way that it is important for the topic.

could be wrong but I have never seen nitrate with dr Tim’s so I would not buy an another test based on my experience.

Most bacterial product claim 2-4 days. It is not impossible by logic so I just accept it.

put it in a real word scenario. You set up your tank and it is cloudy for a day or two so the shop is closed on Sunday by the time you would go fish shopping so you wait till next weekend assuming you are working so you have waited already 7 day. Sounds like you have waited more than 4 days anyway.

 

[LRT]

I think you are right that not much will change. The result of the denitrification process is inevitable regardless of how it is started. Unfortunately, how the process was started may have impact later in the form of algae and other pesky issues normally referred to as the "uglies". I'd like to see if a group could figure out how to create a MATURE system, without going through a year or more of this ugliness. Lasse hits on this issue some, but I'd like to see it taken farther. I'd like to see if there is a new paradigm rather than just splitting hairs how to start a nitrogen cycle or the value of testing its progress. For example... and I'll admit these are "out there" but... Could you start a tank without cycling at all if no fish are introduced and only photosynthetic corals were stocked? Could small amounts of ammonia be dosed to provide the nitrogen for those corals and/or their dependent algae? Once stocked in that manner, could fish be slowly added to provide the nitrogen input the corals need?

Hi @ReefGeezer there are already a few journals on the boards. One or 2 stocked full of sps that implemented the instastock method. Maybe not in record time.
I'm hoping to put some data and see just how fast.
0 uglies far as I can see in some of the builds I'm watching.
I honestly feel that's going to come down to controlling nutrient levels and cuc as soon as its livestock ready.
Other variables like flow and turnover and export as well but not sure how much im going to be able to get done in a 10 gallon

 

[Lasse]

Could you start a tank without cycling at all if no fish are introduced and only photosynthetic corals were stocked? Could small amounts of ammonia be dosed to provide the nitrogen for those corals and/or their dependent algae? Once stocked in that manner, could fish be slowly added to provide the nitrogen input the corals need?

Shortly - yes. But in that case - I would use 50% old water and mix it with new salt water.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[taricha]

They say nothing good happens fast. Lately I’ve thinking that “not much” happens when taking it slow. One of my tanks is almost 3 years wet and coralline is just now showing up. Algae didn’t even grow until I added a fish!(one year wet aprox). Tank had been ready, was just taking my time.

I have seen a similar pattern of nothing, when necessary ingredients are withheld.
I set up some tiny test tanks and cycled them, then just let them circulate. for months in the dark.
The NO3 in each tank stayed at its high post-cycling level (50+) for 90 days. Without light or any organic carbon input, the activity and probably the "maturation" of the system is very very low.
Could corals and fish live in there after "curing" for 3 months? yeah. Maybe the same as they could have on day 7 or 9.

The list of influences include, the amount of light, salinity, concentration of trace elements, nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations, dissolved organic carbon type and concentration and when and what species of microorganisms are introduced into the aquarium.

I suggest that biofilm maturation can be nudged to develop differently by manipulating the above influences. The time frame between nudging biofilm development and observing the effect is weeks. What you see happening today was probably caused by what you did a month ago.

This is also true. The conditions drive the biofilm. And the biofilm being stable and adjusted to the new conditions likely takes a week or more.

But the flip side is that fish and coral can drive the biofilm. Corals are very good at controlling their own large bacterial population. This can be seen most dramatically on the rare occasions when it disappears, when a coral gets a disease and can no longer control its microbiome - things go badly very fast. Im sure I'm not the only one who's seen a sick coral colony where part of the colony is dying and gets quickly overrun by nuisance algae while the other healthy part of the coral maintains itself totally clean and clear.

Would a healthy coral + coral-associated fish, if added to a new system very early (immediately after ammonia + no2 processing is established), cause the system to accelerate and rapidly develop the "mature" biofilm desired for a reef system?