Should we rethink and refine means and methods for cycling tanks?
- Thread starter LRT
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Its my experience that autotrophic organisms can go dormant if the the energy input is lacking - at least during some time. Remember - with nitrifiers - the N is not foodstuff in the general way - instead give the transfer from NH4 -> NO2 and NO2-> NO3 extra energy as light give to photosynthetic autotroph organisms. He is - IMO wrong with "compete" but right with "goes dormant"
Sincerely Lasse
OP
OP
Seneye gives nh3 and nh4 values in real time monitoring. The most important observance through all those threads is 0 concentration value of free ammonia.. Same time color coded kit showing toxic values same tanks side by side. Many have confirmed it.
Its proving old cycle science if anything with new school method.
There's nothing I've seen that doesn't say it wouldn't perfectly align with everything else we have discussed.
Remember I feed the same way you suggest in failsafe step.
It be just as easy to confirm with method you and Dan laid out.
I dont think putting an un safe label on it is fair. Some of us have confirmed 0 concentration values.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Its not responisble to approach the subject of ammonia monitering with a fear mongering metantility especially for new reefers. Its unfair to suggest with this mentality there is only one safe way to get readings of toxic ammonia levels in color coded kits that are highly innefective and inaccurate and that leave much room for user error.
Probably more wreckless and dangerous to continue to do so if anything.
Whats important to point out through all the discussion in this thread is there is a new school tool in seneye that is smart enough to differentiate between nh3 and nh4 and gives us real time monitoring of both.
Calibrated or not many seneye users have confirmed the most important takeaway in this thread in that with seneye monitoring many of us seneye users have confirmed Peak values of toxic free ammonia down to the most minimal concentrations to .001
The only ammonia that actually matters here!
The data proving 0 values of toxic ammonia in work threads I posted in this thread should not be overlooked. Not only is it disrespectful to the folks that took the time to do the work to prove these things. Its highly disrespectful to the many other folks that have confirmed the same work to suggest the data is wrong or a lie.
Probably more wreckless and dangerous to continue to do so if anything.
Whats important to point out through all the discussion in this thread is there is a new school tool in seneye that is smart enough to differentiate between nh3 and nh4 and gives us real time monitoring of both.
Calibrated or not many seneye users have confirmed the most important takeaway in this thread in that with seneye monitoring many of us seneye users have confirmed Peak values of toxic free ammonia down to the most minimal concentrations to .001
The only ammonia that actually matters here!
The data proving 0 values of toxic ammonia in work threads I posted in this thread should not be overlooked. Not only is it disrespectful to the folks that took the time to do the work to prove these things. Its highly disrespectful to the many other folks that have confirmed the same work to suggest the data is wrong or a lie.
Last edited:
Help me out. What does "0 value of toxic free ammonia" mean?
OP
OP
0 concentration levels of nh3= "toxic" "free" ammonia present.
Nh4 is always present. Haven't seen much from anyone debating that nh4 is toxic or a concern.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,864
- Reaction score
- 21,991
I didnt start a thread after you? I said IF you took a poll no one would know what you're trying to prove. I have never tried to 'debunk' anything about the Seneye or its use. I don't get what you're talking about. Perhaps you're mixing up the OTHER thread where we were discussing pH? IDK. Gosh - I remember saying in a PM that I agree with most of your ideas. I remember saying in this thread that I agree with 95 percent of what you're saying.Every once in awhile I'm going to come out of ignore mode to keep every one honest
I'm actually flattered you started a thread after me
Do me a favor next time and fire that 20 gallon up and at least try to disprove anything ive said here.
Or anything you have discredited in any of the threads I posted earlier.
Till then you get no street cred.
And what your doing is actually dangerous for other users. You literally discredit and throw doubt on perfectly credible info just for the sake of doing so. New reefers see that. Absoloutely horrible man.
Please put water in that 20 gallon and at least try to disprove what ive and many others have said here. I'll pay for it
I was under the impression that the discussion was 'new ways of cycling'. There is certainly no 'right or wrong'. You're bringing things down to a Seneye - Please show me ONE quote where I have said anything that would mislead 'new reefers' in this thread. THEN please tell me where the groundbreaking news thats been reported here about cycling that I've tried to 'squelch'.
Just so its clear (again) -
1. I think people take too long to cycle their tanks.
2. I think adding coral first - with rock may be more effective than adding fish first.
3. I think adding live rock first can be more effective than 'dry rock'
4. I think its possible to add bacteria and dry rock and fish on nearly day one. If you're concerned about ammonia - check it how ever you want.
5. The Seneye is giving us 'data' that we didn't have before - Great - is it accurate? IDK. Does the high ammonia used or bottled bacteria affect measurements in the first days of cycling? IDK. Does it help significantly in the cycling process? In my opinion - no.
6. I have no motive to discredit anyone. Nor have I. I have posted how I do things - as has @Lasse - and others - yet those 'ways' are discredited by some here. Great - I don't care.
The only disagreement I have with anyone concerning cycling is any person that says 'We know by day x a tank is cycled'. and 'ammonia oxidizers will colonize ever part of the tank independent of the amount of ammonia present' by day x. I've already explained the reasons for that statement.
There is only one poster here who is basically demanding that people accept his reasoning, methods, and ideas. I.e. everyone else is 'wrong'. IMHO you can start up a tank in probably an infinite number of ways and be successful. I don't care how anyone does anything - including you or @brandon429.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,864
- Reaction score
- 21,991
If NH4 is present, NH3 is always present as well - by definition - its just not at a measurable level - ie the instrument is not sensitive enough. If there is NH4 - there is NH3 based on 'chemistry' and 'physical laws'. If an API test or a Seneye or anything shows '0' - it is impossible to be correct (except perhaps at pH's far lower than a reef tank.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,864
- Reaction score
- 21,991
Yes - that was my point. And I agree. I was saying that the people that claim that independent of ammonia - they just keep multiplying are incorrect. I.e. they multiply to a certain bioload after which the population is in equilibrium with the amount of ammonia produced/added to the tank. i.e. they do not COMPLETELY cover every surface in the tank
OP
OP
@MnFish1 ive posted enough threads in this thread to show that all you do is run around the boards and cast doubt and derail legitimate and credible work done by other folks.
All anyone has to do is click on the threads most folks have linked to see that.
There is one common demonitor here amongst all the threads your casting doubts in.
Its you that has failed to show burden of Proof in your words. They mean absoloutely nothing when compared to the data.
Until you do experiments to prove the other reefers works wrong.
You have nothing.
I'll finance your 20 gallon tank. I want you to prove me wrong. I want to to prove the work in other threads wrong.
Until you can show we are wrong I have nothing for it. I'm not even sure how to take you serious without it.
All anyone has to do is click on the threads most folks have linked to see that.
There is one common demonitor here amongst all the threads your casting doubts in.
Its you that has failed to show burden of Proof in your words. They mean absoloutely nothing when compared to the data.
Until you do experiments to prove the other reefers works wrong.
You have nothing.
I'll finance your 20 gallon tank. I want you to prove me wrong. I want to to prove the work in other threads wrong.
Until you can show we are wrong I have nothing for it. I'm not even sure how to take you serious without it.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,864
- Reaction score
- 21,991
Tell me what you want me to 'prove wrong' - its that simple. I haven't said anything you've said is 'wrong'. I'll do the experiment - short of buying a Seneye. With pictures. Since, though, I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying - I have no clue what you're talking about?
What have they confirmed? The colour coded kit shows total ammonia and seneye only NH3. It calculate the NH4 from the pH and we have seen here that Seneyes accuracy according pH is whatever. You can´t use something that calculate pears in order to confirm something that count apples. all of these confirmation have been done because people can´t see the differences between measuring free ammonia and total ammonia.
No thread have confirm the accuracy of seneye - and there is no accuracy and repeatability for seneye in the manual as I have seen. We have also not seen if the test have been done with calibrated (and cleaned) equipment or not,
What you basically say is that if you use a Seneye - you can trust it to 100% - just throw in as many fish you want.
It may be an excellent tool but there is no scientifically prove for that what ever.
It is you that claim that seneye is fail safe - prove it with real science not with others that repeat the same thing that you claim. You claim that colour test is ineffective and inaccurate and your proof for this is that Seneye shows 0 and fish survive. it is not enough for me because this is a circular proof
I´m sorry to say . your wrong again. If real NH3 is 0 - NH4 is 0 too. If you find total ammonia in a sample and seneye says 0 - it is Seneyes accuracy in that pH that is not good enough.
In a solution - total ammonia will be divided into two forms - the toxic ammoniac gas (NH3) and the non toxic ammonium (NH4) The percentage of each is depended of pH, temp, salinity and altitude there pH have the most importance. If NH3 is 0 - by definition NH4 is 0 too.
At pH 7 NH3 is around 0,57 % and NH4 around 99.43 %, at pH 8 - NH3 is around 5% and NH4 around 95 %. pH 8.5 NH3 around 15% and NH4 around 85% of total ammonia. All at 25 degree C If pH change - the percentage change like the lighting.
One example is long time transport of fish in plastic bags. The pH in these will with time go down below 7 - nearly all excreted ammonia from the fish is in the form of NH4 - not NH3. An aquarist have heard that and do a test with seneye - seneye cant detect very low values as I understand - therefore report seneye 0 as NH3. The aquarist believe that there is no total ammonia in the bag and start to mix with his/hers excellent water with a pH around 8 - 8.5. If the total ammonia concentrations was around 2 ppm in the bag - NH3 will rise to around 0.1 ppm at pH 8 and 0,3 ppm NH3 at pH 8.5,
IME - total ammonia (NH3+NH4) in a plastic bag with fish transported more than 24 hours can have levels around 3-6 ppm and nearly 0 in free ammonia (NH3) because the low pH (I have measured pH of 6.5 in bags transported for 48 hours. Many people have killed fish when they have unpacked these in the wrong way.
What I saying is that Seneyes measurement without knowing the proper pH (which it seems Seneye is not so good as) can be counterproductive. Especially if you do it in a tank full of photosynthetic organisms there pH can vary between below 8 to 8.5 during dark/light periods. If total ammonia is 1,5 ppm and seneye shows the not acute toxic level of 0,07 ppm as NH3 in the morning (pH=8) it will be 0.2 ppm in the evening if photosynthesis took up the pH to 8.5. As you can see here - the rise is not linear
The mistake you and Brandon does is that you take some examples thats are specific of its nature (pH, pH variations, fish species, circulation, conditions of the seneye equipment and many other things) and do this experiences into a general conclusion without knowing all parameters.
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
I do not doubt their work - I doubt their and your conclusions because they are many times not in consequence with science
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
OP
OP
So we are super excessively clear here.
You did question my agenda throughout the pages of this and other thread linked here.
My Agenda has remained the same through this thread. To show folks there absoloutely is more efficient ways to cycle and stock a reef tank! That has been clear and enough evidence has been provided to back that claim.
It is your agenda that is in question throughout the many threads linked.
You are discrediting and totally disrespecting the folks that did the work and provided raw data. With your words no less. No experiments. No actual proof that these folks are wrong. That's entirely 100% disrespectful to the folks that have put the work in.
Not only is it wrong but dangerous to new reefers that may see your posts and believe your nonsense.
Give me a thread and do an experiment and prove us wrong. Like I said ill finance it ill even come help you set it up for success.
LRT if critics responded here with links of threads they wrote, or made, or produced measures in, imagine how well this thread would be going/plus all our shared threads from the past on the matter.
carte blanche to literally wreck other people's post comes directly from getting to insert opinion after opinion for pages, nothing on the line. no predictions made, or failed, just opining as the sole challenge.
Its still guessing/hypothesizing to make a link try and sway a prediction in another setup, but it at least shows forethought on the matter and ability to match shared details build to build.
For readers, a handy way to validate those who critic all cycling threads: click on their badge name
select all threads, read what they produce
now contrast that to the certainty involved in all assessments here, and their last 2 months by clicking see all posts.
read that distinction, for all parties
by the way, Lasse passes well. He writes well, with experience, and he does not wreck other's threads he provides reasonable challenge which is a good claims filter. we dont want all claims passed here, we want that kind of scrutiny.
but the rest is destructive habit pure and simple, but ruining other's work threads as the daily MO, potentially new and helpful info is immediately shredded by parties whom you can directly see do not produce anything for this hobby, they make no key links or observations, they wait for others to build a pattern set then they descend
how are the other key players looking after such a read? Helpful or harmful to discovery?
Lasse passes well in all he posts, I'm directly reading it now. Im seeing discoveries and measures he's made, well done L.
carte blanche to literally wreck other people's post comes directly from getting to insert opinion after opinion for pages, nothing on the line. no predictions made, or failed, just opining as the sole challenge.
Its still guessing/hypothesizing to make a link try and sway a prediction in another setup, but it at least shows forethought on the matter and ability to match shared details build to build.
For readers, a handy way to validate those who critic all cycling threads: click on their badge name
select all threads, read what they produce
now contrast that to the certainty involved in all assessments here, and their last 2 months by clicking see all posts.
read that distinction, for all parties
by the way, Lasse passes well. He writes well, with experience, and he does not wreck other's threads he provides reasonable challenge which is a good claims filter. we dont want all claims passed here, we want that kind of scrutiny.
but the rest is destructive habit pure and simple, but ruining other's work threads as the daily MO, potentially new and helpful info is immediately shredded by parties whom you can directly see do not produce anything for this hobby, they make no key links or observations, they wait for others to build a pattern set then they descend
how are the other key players looking after such a read? Helpful or harmful to discovery?
Lasse passes well in all he posts, I'm directly reading it now. Im seeing discoveries and measures he's made, well done L.
I have purposefully withheld proof threads here to prevent the wreckage motivation technique. Was worried for Jon too lol, first work threads for anything, any aspect of new cycling science we get a small peek at, is open to destruction by those who simply do not produce anything for this hobby.
Jon's calibration thread using his seneye on various setups MIGHT have some unideal settings or measures but its among the first of its kind. We don't slam and destroy threads like that, though some will, what we do to challenge findings is produce a better proof thread and link that now critics other than Lasse
I'm tired of reading critical opinions, I want to see something that someone has predicted in the past linked here to see if I want to believe them now about a particular angle.
Jon's calibration thread using his seneye on various setups MIGHT have some unideal settings or measures but its among the first of its kind. We don't slam and destroy threads like that, though some will, what we do to challenge findings is produce a better proof thread and link that now critics other than Lasse
I'm tired of reading critical opinions, I want to see something that someone has predicted in the past linked here to see if I want to believe them now about a particular angle.
Last edited:
Ok. I'll buy that NH4+ is not as big of a concern in a properly operating system. But, I don't see any value added for testing for only free ammonia vs. total ammonia as applied to monitoring cycles. As long as we understand the explanation for the different answers the tests produce, it really shouldn't change the outcome.
I'll second the above. All in favor say "Aye".
OP
OP
Lasse i fully respect your knowledge and scientific opinion, none of the nonsense is meant towards you. Ive learned alot here and appreciate you taking the time to help me better understand certain things. I owe you one for that and hope you continue to post in here. Pure gold man
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 22,864
- Reaction score
- 21,991
And SOMEHOW you got the idea that I DISAGREE with what you wrote above??? I completely agree with what you say above. IN fact - Multiple times - I said 'I DON'T USE ANY AMMONIA TESTS AT ALL'. So - in reality - it seems like another poster has set up a false argument that I never made - which you have now 'picked up'. That somehow I don't believe the 'work threads'. I 100 percent agree with every thread that suggests that a properly set up Seneye is likely more accurate and precise than other tests - AND I agree 100 percent that for many reasons some of the liquid ammonia tests show NH4 levels that THEY label as toxic - which as @Lasse said may not be representative of any toxic levels of free ammonia.
I have not read many of the 'work threads' nor have I added anything to them - because, in fact, I AGREE WITH THEM. I did not agree with the guy who despite having a pH of 7.06 on his Seneye - no-one mentioned it at all (many people didn't even notice it). I did not think that some of the conclusions that @taricha made in his Prime experiments were justified based on the data. So - Im glad to clarify that I don't care if someone wants to use a Seneye, or any other tool to cycle - I wanted to discuss the philosophy of cycling - and what could change (How to avoid the uglies, etc) - somehow this devolved into discussion of the same things these threads always devolve into - and its due to 1 person - (who is not me)
OP
OP
I didn't say any of that Lasse.What have they confirmed? The colour coded kit shows total ammonia and seneye only NH3. It calculate the NH4 from the pH and we have seen here that Seneyes accuracy according pH is whatever. You can´t use something that calculate pears in order to confirm something that count apples. all of these confirmation have been done because people can´t see the differences between measuring free ammonia and total ammonia.
No thread have confirm the accuracy of seneye - and there is no accuracy and repeatability for seneye in the manual as I have seen. We have also not seen if the test have been done with calibrated (and cleaned) equipment or not,
What you basically say is that if you use a Seneye - you can trust it to 100% - just throw in as many fish you want.
It may be an excellent tool but there is no scientifically prove for that what ever.
It is you that claim that seneye is fail safe - prove it with real science not with others that repeat the same thing that you claim. You claim that colour test is ineffective and inaccurate and your proof for this is that Seneye shows 0 and fish survive. it is not enough for me because this is a circular proof
I´m sorry to say . your wrong again. If real NH3 is 0 - NH4 is 0 too. If you find total ammonia in a sample and seneye says 0 - it is Seneyes accuracy in that pH that is not good enough.
In a solution - total ammonia will be divided into two forms - the toxic ammoniac gas (NH3) and the non toxic ammonium (NH4) The percentage of each is depended of pH, temp, salinity and altitude there pH have the most importance. If NH3 is 0 - by definition NH4 is 0 too.
At pH 7 NH3 is around 0,57 % and NH4 around 99.43 %, at pH 8 - NH3 is around 5% and NH4 around 95 %. pH 8.5 NH3 around 15% and NH4 around 85% of total ammonia. All at 25 degree C If pH change - the percentage change like the lighting.
One example is long time transport of fish in plastic bags. The pH in these will with time go down below 7 - nearly all excreted ammonia from the fish is in the form of NH4 - not NH3. An aquarist have heard that and do a test with seneye - seneye cant detect very low values as I understand - therefore report seneye 0 as NH3. The aquarist believe that there is no total ammonia in the bag and start to mix with his/hers excellent water with a pH around 8 - 8.5. If the total ammonia concentrations was around 2 ppm in the bag - NH3 will rise to around 0.1 ppm at pH 8 and 0,3 ppm NH3 at pH 8.5,
IME - total ammonia (NH3+NH4) in a plastic bag with fish transported more than 24 hours can have levels around 3-6 ppm and nearly 0 in free ammonia (NH3) because the low pH (I have measured pH of 6.5 in bags transported for 48 hours. Many people have killed fish when they have unpacked these in the wrong way.
What I saying is that Seneyes measurement without knowing the proper pH (which it seems Seneye is not so good as) can be counterproductive. Especially if you do it in a tank full of photosynthetic organisms there pH can vary between below 8 to 8.5 during dark/light periods. If total ammonia is 1,5 ppm and seneye shows the not acute toxic level of 0,07 ppm as NH3 in the morning (pH=8) it will be 0.2 ppm in the evening if photosynthesis took up the pH to 8.5. As you can see here - the rise is not linear
The mistake you and Brandon does is that you take some examples thats are specific of its nature (pH, pH variations, fish species, circulation, conditions of the seneye equipment and many other things) and do this experiences into a general conclusion without knowing all parameters.
Sincerely Lasse
I said I have confirmed minimal to 0 concentrations of toxic free ammonia in same tanks side by side in comparison to color coded kits.
You can calibrate seneye ph, ammonia and temp all in real time and observe the same 0 levels of free ammonia.
The only point I'm trying to get across is we do have one tool that is more efficient and accurate to read nh3.
I'm not putting insignifance on the rest you have spoken on. I'm putting signifance simply in that fact.
- Status
Similar threads
