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

[LRT]

I am not sure that it is totally clear for everyone here that seneye and normal test kits measure two different things. When your ammonia in a bottle hit water it will be divided into two compounds NH4 (ammonium) and NH3 (ammoniac). The percentage between this two compounds depends largely on the pH of the water. At pH 8 - around 5% is NH3 and 95% is NH4 - at pH 8.5 - NH3 is around 15 % and NH4 around 85 % of the total ammonia.

Seneye only measure NH3 (free ammonia, ammoniac) most other tests measure total ammonia (NH3+NH4)
SeaChems ammonia alert only measure NH3 as well

Therefor if seneye measure 0.2 ppm NH3 at pH 8 - total ammonia (other kits) should show around 4 ppm (total) ammonia

Here is a rather good tool to use for a conversion (between thumb and index finger)

A quick tool for evulation of total ammonia measurements

Most aquarium ammonia test kits measure the total concentration of NH3 (ammoniac) and NH4 (ammonium). It is only the NH3 concentration that is toxic and the presence of each N species is depended on pH, temperature and salinity. The tool in the excel file is adapted for 25 degree C (77 F). At 27...

www.reef2reef.com

Sincerely Lasse

Hi Lasse can you give us exact same thing for API Nitrite kit? What is it testing and in your experience with api or other similar kits? Do you or any other followers reading have any idea on margin of error someone could expect a color coded nitrite kit to record peak but not necessarily be able to track nitrites back to 0 because the kits don't read concentrations to the lowest degree?
For example. If concentration on is 100ppm and reads in 100ppm increments id expect to be reading 100ppm until it levels back to absoloute 0 but concentrations could very well be at 0 or extremely close to 0. Id imagine they probably round up to the nearest 100ppm increment as well.

I'm not sure if you aware but seneye does give a separate nh4 reading. It seems to me its doing the math and separating nh3 from nh4?

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Hi Lasse can you give us exact same thing for API Nitrite kit? What is it testing and in your experience with api or other similar kits? Do you or any other followers reading have any idea on margin of error someone could expect a color coded nitrite kit to record peak but not necessarily be able to track nitrites back to 0 because the kits don't read concentrations to the lowest degree?
For example. If concentration on is 100ppm and reads in 100ppm increments id expect to be reading 100ppm until it levels back to absoloute 0 but concentrations could very well be at 0 or extremely close to 0. Id imagine they probably round up to the nearest 100ppm increment as well.

I'm not sure if you aware but seneye does give a separate nh4 reading. It seems to me its doing the math and separating nh3 from nh4?

Seneye reading for nh4 is computed/estimated using temp and pH per Seneye tech support.

 

[LRT]

Seneye reading for nh4 is computed/estimated using temp and pH per Seneye tech support.

Right on. Have you gone back through your tables to see if nh3 and nh4 tracks out close to percentages Lasse gave?

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

Right on. Have you gone back through your tables to see if nh3 and nh4 tracks out close to percentages Lasse gave?

I can look at it tonight.

Most of my estimations I got through an online calculator and were within reason from what I remember. I will get back to you on that.

 

[MnFish1]

I'm telling it how it is. I own and use a seneye. I know how it works.
Others feel the exact same way about apex as you do about seneye. Especially when it comes down to PH probe, calibration and updates.
Seneye can be calibrated just like the apex PH probe.
I'm see yours but maybe your missing my point?

I get your point. I have not looked at my apex data for literally weeks. I just do not use it - except to alert me to temperature. I would not repeat the purchase. So I guess you could say - I am being consistent.

But - back to the OP/title of the thread - Given what your saying - and having read most if not all of the posts - I would not use a Seneye for anything. Thats my opinion. I would certainly not use it (over liquid tests) to 'prove' what stage a cycle is at.

The reason I mentioned the Seneye in your specific tank as compared to others - having read at least a couple threads, there can be considerable variability depending on placement.

But - I guess I've lost the focus of the discussion. Why are we still talking about other totally separate threads that 'prove' what everyone agrees on? Why does it keep coming up?

What really confuses me is the concept that 'a cycle is completely consistent, by day x, you can add whatever you want. If you use bacteria you can add it well before day x', there is no such thing as a stalled cycle, etc, etc, etc'. To me this concept suggests there is no reason to check ammonia, nitirite or anything else - just wait for day 'x'. There would certainly be no reason for continuous monitoring. Those 2 ideas are basically mutually exclusive - right?

 

[MnFish1]

For example. If concentration on is 100ppm and reads in 100ppm increments id expect to be reading 100ppm until it levels back to absoloute 0 but concentrations could very well be at 0 or extremely close to 0. Id imagine they probably round up to the nearest 100ppm increment as well.

No this is not how it works in a liquid test. Lets say a liquid test goes from 0 to 100 and the color is yellow if its 0 and blue if its 100. if its 0 - its yellow - as levels of whatever you're measuring are higher - the shade will be slightly green then more and more until its blue. at least if this is what you mean with the question?

 

[NoahLikesFish]

For scientifical purposes of course
I know that brs is looking at new ideas for setting up tanks.
They have fully cycled and stocked a successful tank in 48hrs.
I've done a tank in 24hrs.
We know that we can fully transfer tanks over to new systems and not even experience cycles as long as we don't exceed bioload from existing tanks.
We know that we can pretty much do the same thing with dry rock/bottle bac tank start ups if cycle protocol is followed and tank is stocked correctly.
We know that color coded test kits can read astronomically high when seneye shows ammonia levels in hundredths and sometimes thousandths on same new "cycling" tanks.
If by definition a cycle is considered over when ammonia and nitrite levels top out and begin to decline. Why do we continue to tell reefers they are still cycling when tanks are fully capable of handling bioload?

Why aren't we really exploring the benefits of these controlled approaches to cycling tanks? There are too many successful reefs being documented daily using new approaches and getting same job done more efficiently.
Why are we still regurgitating old school rules when they are out of date and no longer apply to new school data and methods?

i did my tank in 12 hours with coral, hermit crabs, and a bicolor blenny. my theory is using 100% live sand, biospira, live rock, macroalgae, and you can add fish when the water is clear.

 

[Lasse]

Seneye reading for nh4 is computed/estimated using temp and pH per Seneye tech support.

Exactly - and if we can´t trust their pH readings - the NH4 will be off the records. But it measure NH3 direct and that´s the important part - it is NH3 that is toxic - not NH4

Most NO2 tests use ppm NO2 - If they use NO2-N it will be mentioned in the manual. If they use NO2-N - the result should be multiplied with 3.29.

Hanna nitrite checker use ppb NO3-N - to get ppm NO2 you should divide the result with 1000 and after that multiply with 3.29

I have no experiences with API and seldom use colour test kits

tracks out close to percentages Lasse gave

It does between the thumb and index finger - I did not take with salinity but my calculator use around 26 psu salinity. The scale is not linear between 8 and 8.5 - it follow an exp function

Sincerely Lasse

 

[LRT]

Exactly - and if we can´t trust their pH readings - the NH4 will be off the records. But it measure NH3 direct and that´s the important part - it is NH3 that is toxic - not NH4

Most NO2 tests use ppm NO2 - If they use NO2-N it will be mentioned in the manual. If they use NO2-N - the result should be multiplied with 3.29.

Hanna nitrite checker use ppb NO3-N - to get ppm NO2 you should divide the result with 1000 and after that multiply with 3.29

I have no experiences with API and seldom use colour test kits


It does between the thumb and index finger - I did not take with salinity but my calculator use around 26 psu salinity. The scale is not linear between 8 and 8.5 - it follow an exp function

Sincerely Lasse

Hi Lasse thank you greatly appreciated.
I'm riding the line super fine here with you because I fully understand the points you make as I raised alot of same concerns i have had with it.
Having said that. Used as a tool to Guage and record Peak Ammonia concentration back 0's. I have confirmed seneye 0's with other kits.
Uncalibrated or not you register peak values and one thing that's remained super consistent is the 0 value after peak.

 

[Tamale]

It really seems like these tests (liquid, Seneye, apex etc) are really just here to get ballparks. So wouldn’t it really be more conducive to use them as such and primarily rely on visual fish/coral/invertebrate activity/health? Can we ever really KNOW how a tank is going to respond to the addition of livestock (outside of inferring based on these tests that could be accurate or off by degrees) until we add livestock and see how that livestock responds to the tank over time?

 

[Lasse]

There is one test that is better than others - not sensitive and you can use it with a Hanna if you are colorblind. It is the nitrite test. If you start with adding ammonia - we know that ammonia will be converted into nitrite and after that to nitrate, Just measure nitrite - get the peak and down - the nitrification cycle is done. you do not need to mess with other unproven methods

Or do the failsafe method - do not add huge amount of ammonia - just as much as a fish excrete (use a fish or chemical). Feed very sparsely (if you use a fish) and rise it very little a day for 3 weeks. If you use chemical ammonia - just rise it as careful as you feed the fish. at the same time - add bacteria with one or another method on daily basis or a lot once (living sand, living rock, old filtrate or whatever) Do not measure and you are fine in a three weeks period - sooner if you both use used rocks, gravel and water

Sincerely Lasse

 

[LRT]

It really seems like these tests (liquid, Seneye, apex etc) are really just here to get ballparks. So wouldn’t it really be more conducive to use them as such and primarily rely on visual fish/coral/invertebrate activity/health? Can we ever really KNOW how a tank is going to respond to the addition of livestock (outside of inferring based on these tests that could be accurate or off by degrees) until we add livestock and see how that livestock responds to the tank over time?

Responsibly speaking probably not and why folks are so passionate on the subject.
Having said that i have personally done enough testing with certain kits and specific params to know margins of error are there but always confirm them.

 

[ReefGeezer]

It really seems like these tests (liquid, Seneye, apex etc) are really just here to get ballparks. So wouldn’t it really be more conducive to use them as such and primarily rely on visual fish/coral/invertebrate activity/health? Can we ever really KNOW how a tank is going to respond to the addition of livestock (outside of inferring based on these tests that could be accurate or off by degrees) until we add livestock and see how that livestock responds to the tank over time?

I think Ballpark is good enough. It's really the trend that's important and not the exact number. Knowing the limitations of the test kit would probably be a good idea though. I often wonder how many people have waited for the false low level ammonia reading on their API test kit to go away. I was one, but it was a very long time ago. Fool me once...

 

[MnFish1]

Responsibly speaking probably not and why folks are so passionate on the subject.
Having said that i have personally done enough testing with certain kits and specific params to know margins of error are there but always confirm them.

Its funny until I came to this forum - I never tested ammonia or nitrite when I started up a tank. I never knew it was a controversy. Years ago - before there was bottled bacteria, etc, you just put water and fish in a tank (a small fish in a big tank) - and fed them - and then slowly added other 'stuff'. Once bottled bacteria came into play - I always added it on day 0 - and fish (how ever many I wanted in the tank) on day 1. Never did a test and never had a problem.

I have never understood the idea that putting a fish in a tank is somehow 'immoral' - if you add bacteria as well. I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that, in reality, the whole idea of 'cycling' is perhaps a lot of fuss about nothing. Note - I can see the rationale for periodically checking ammonia if you're worried, or perhaps you think your bottled bacteria might be 'bad'. As @ReefGeezer said - how many people have relied on inaccurate tests, wasting time, money and sometimes killing livestock trying to fix a non-existent problem

 

[MnFish1]

I think Ballpark is good enough. It's really the trend that's important and not the exact number. Knowing the limitations of the test kit would probably be a good idea though. I often wonder how many people have waited for the false low level ammonia reading on their API test kit to go away. I was one, but it was a very long time ago. Fool me once...

Agree for the most part. In reality every test has an accuracy and precision /margin of error - so every test in every field is 'ballpark'. I think where you want an accurate test is more acute when you have a problem - OR - when you get a test thats out of range and you need to decide whether to 'fix it', verify, etc.

 

[ReefGeezer]

Its funny until I came to this forum - I never tested ammonia or nitrite when I started up a tank. I never knew it was a controversy. Years ago - before there was bottled bacteria, etc, you just put water and fish in a tank (a small fish in a big tank) - and fed them - and then slowly added other 'stuff'...

Like this thread, my thinking on "cycling" has evolved, and even come full circle in some cases. After some thought, I think we did a few things right back in the day. Once I filtered the "clutter" out of the info in this thread and a couple others, the real paradigm shift, for me anyway, is the downstream effects the method used has on the maturation process. My next tank will be cycled differently in hopes of greatly reducing the maturation time. I'll probably still use my ammonia and nitrite kits, but just to make sure something isn't amiss.

 

[LRT]

I think Ballpark is good enough. It's really the trend that's important and not the exact number. Knowing the limitations of the test kit would probably be a good idea though. I often wonder how many people have waited for the false low level ammonia reading on their API test kit to go away. I was one, but it was a very long time ago. Fool me once...

Well said I have done this too many times. Ive seen 2-3 day ammonia lags from color to color. The infamous stuck readings.. Tons of room for error especially with leaky caps and exact water measurements. Most likely whats occurring with nitrite kit as well.

 

[LRT]

There is one test that is better than others - not sensitive and you can use it with a Hanna if you are colorblind. It is the nitrite test. If you start with adding ammonia - we know that ammonia will be converted into nitrite and after that to nitrate, Just measure nitrite - get the peak and down - the nitrification cycle is done. you do not need to mess with other unproven methods

Or do the failsafe method - do not add huge amount of ammonia - just as much as a fish excrete (use a fish or chemical). Feed very sparsely (if you use a fish) and rise it very little a day for 3 weeks. If you use chemical ammonia - just rise it as careful as you feed the fish. at the same time - add bacteria with one or another method on daily basis or a lot once (living sand, living rock, old filtrate or whatever) Do not measure and you are fine in a three weeks period - sooner if you both use used rocks, gravel and water

Sincerely Lasse

This is gold Lasse thank you

 

[brandon429]

I agree that was good.

but can't agree api nitrite will work as reliably as stated, I bet it works as well as the ammonia does among lots of 500 reports / groups of cycles analyzed. the idea as presented is very well stated its not a disagreement with Lasse its a disagreement with ten thousand non-Lasses reporting API data

we still have to assess whether Prime is used before taking the readings, confounds still apply. Given that training alongside nitrite tracking it would be neat to see a few pages of reef tank start dates ran that way. I really think it could work, nice post.

if a nitrite-mediated cycling thread could be made I'd sub to it, side study it and enjoy it because I think it could work. we need the real pages of tanks though to iron out kinks predicted and not predicted using that metric.

among ten or twenty pages of reef tanks using that metric as a start date on API, it may turn out very reliable given no confound hunts really agreed it may. we need that final step I think a work thread / titled appro should be made. I would support it not deride it or challenge it, support it from the sidelines watching.

 

[brandon429]

I'm not happy with how ammonia tracking reported by cyclers is turning out per every 50 cycle posts for example.

reports range from .5 to 8 ppm, that wide.

so, if moving to nitrite shores that up (people tend to demand at least some testing, few will agree with non testing) I'm for the study. perhaps that side of testing will be reported more consistently by the masses to match the biology timing we already know about it