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

[MnFish1]

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.

Yes - lets be excessively clear. I wanted to discuss VARIOUS, i.e. MULTIPLE methods of cycling and their advantages and disadvantages. That was my agenda. Which is the title of the Thread. I have never discredited any 'work thread' nor attempted to do so. I agree with all of the 'results' of the work threads - I disagree with some of the conclusions that are continuously repeated by one poster. BUT - as I've expressed to you in private - I even agree with A LOT of what that poster says. So I'd appreciate if you would stop mischaracterizing my opinion/agenda, etc

 

[LRT]

Yes - lets be excessively clear. I wanted to discuss VARIOUS, i.e. MULTIPLE methods of cycling and their advantages and disadvantages. That was my agenda. Which is the title of the Thread. I have never discredited any 'work thread' nor attempted to do so. I agree with all of the 'results' of the work threads - I disagree with some of the conclusions that are continuously repeated by one poster. BUT - as I've expressed to you in private - I even agree with A LOT of what that poster says. So I'd appreciate if you would stop mischaracterizing my opinion/agenda, etc

No but you did straight out question my agenda so it made me look at yours really closely.

I see same common observance through those threads as I do here.
A characterization based on the observation of your activities of discrediting, disrespecting and casting doubts on work other folks are trying to achieve for the betterment of the community.
Id actually define that as purest form of troll to be real.
Not sure what the definition for something like that from scientific community would be but can't be good.
Most people have work to disprove other people's work and ideas are wrong.
Like I said I'll finance a tank for you to do that. Let me know when you want me to come through and help set you up for success. I want you to prove what ive said is right in your attempt to prove me wrong.

 

[MabuyaQ]

We already know that with established bio media we can perform tank transfers or upgrades with no loss of fish or coral. If we are able to sufficiently seed a new tank with bio media it should be entirely possible to stock it the same day or shortly after. The main issue I see is how to quantify the data in such a way that it is applicable across a wide variety of systems. I also believe that there is an upper limit in bioload that can be supported by any particular system, although we continue to invent new methods to raise that limit through aggressive export. Again the issue is how to quantify that limit so that the data is accessible to a new hobbyist.

This is impossible, at least for the foreseable future. To many variables, with to many unknowns per variable. What you are talking about is an economic model with supply and demand for a multitude of resources in a production change with different and partly variable productionrates by an unkown amount of different producers. Yet you want to know exactly how much of a certain inventory will be present globally 5-10 years from now.

This why Lasse is right about nitrites being so important to measure. All we can do is simplify the system far enough to the point where a measurement could be an indicator for an incoming problem. Nitrites high/rising means either potentially more NO3 incoming when NOB's catch up which in many tanks means more algae or other pest or it could mean potentially more NH4/3 incoming when NOB's drop further behind which could result in dead fish.

 

[MnFish1]

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.

OK - For the 50th time.

1. I predict one can add bacteria and dry rock and fish on day 0 - and fish on day 1 with no difficulty. (From my own personal tanks - over 30 years)
2. I predict one can take a tank move all the live rock, fish, coral, sand (rinsed) from one tank to another with no difficulty or cycle. I've done it multiple times (0ver 30 years).
3. I predict one can avoid over-testing cycling tests - whether with a Seneye, liquid tests, etc. Based on my personal experience over 30 years and multiple tank set ups. In fact - most of the time one needn't do any testing at all - but if you want to - go ahead.

I would say there are probably 20-30 examples of each of these 'tanks' that I have personally managed over 30 years - is that enough of a 'work thread'?

So - anyone suggesting that I've been telling new reefers to be 'fearful' of a cycle, or predicting 'stalled cycles', or stating new reefers should believe that API or other liquid tests is not being truthful (at best) - and deliberately misleading at worst.

As to my 'work threads' - they are what happened with MY tanks with MY experience. I'm not recommending that any of those ways is perfect or will work in every other tank. I'm also not suggesting that just because I have had that experience with multiple types of fish, filtration, bacteria, tank size, etc - that it means anything for the 'broad population'. Thus, the same somewhat negative comments I've made about using 'work threads' as some kind of proof that 'I'm doing it the right way - I will make about my 'work threads' above. I don't think what I've posted anything EXCEPT - it can be done.

By the way - You use a lot of 'new words' that lots of people don't know - as if they are common usage. Part of the disagreement is this type of communication. 'skip cycles', 'stalled cycle', even 'work thread' - has no standard definition. Just because one poster wants to call xxx a 'work thread' - does not mean that my definition above is not as valid. IMHO.

 

[LRT]

This is impossible, at least for the foreseable future. To many variables, with to many unknowns per variable. What you are talking about is an economic model with supply and demand for a multitude of resources in a production change with different and partly variable productionrates by an unkown amount of different producers. Yet you want to know exactly how much of a certain inventory will be present globally 5-10 years from now.

This why Lasse is right about nitrites being so important to measure. All we can do is simplify the system far enough to the point where a measurement could be an indicator for an incoming problem. Nitrites high/rising means either potentially more NO3 incoming when NOB's catch up which in many tanks means more algae or other pest or it could mean potentially more NH4/3 incoming when NOB's drop further behind which could result in dead fish.

I absoloutely do see the signifance in this and everything @Lasse has said.
I think what some folks are more looking to try and figure out are things like what Lasse did with his 15 step method. Crushes the 2ppm dose of ammonia and wait approach. Gets us closer to understanding what's happening and what we really do see our systems doing on a much more personal level with measurements of light feedings and bioloads. The geeky stuff.

 

[MnFish1]

No but you did straight out question my agenda so it made me look at yours really closely.

I see same common observance through those threads as I do here.
A characterization based on the observation of your activities of discrediting, disrespecting and casting doubts on work other folks are trying to achieve for the betterment of the community.
Id actually define that as purest form of troll to be real.
Not sure what the definition for something like that from scientific community would be but can't be good.
Most people have work to disprove other people's work and ideas are wrong.
Like I said I'll finance a tank for you to do that. Let me know when you want me to come through and help set you up for success. I want you to prove what ive said is right in your attempt to prove me wrong.

In order for me to disprove something - you have to tell me what you want me to do. There is not one instance of which I'm aware where I've discredited anyone - please feel free to quote it for me if you like - or point out the 'work thread' that I disagreed with - that you want me to disprove? For example Dan and @taricha's thread - I said there could be some problems based on what I researched from Seneye and Seachem. I spent some time (hours) doing research and pointed it out to them. Not once did I say there results were 'wrong'. I pointed out why the conclusion they made (which is that Prime does not detoxify free ammonia) might not be true. Thats it. I believe the results they did - I believe that if I repeated that experiment - I would get the same results. If I bought a Seneye, my strong guess is that I would get the same results as everyone else. I do not disbelieve - or discredit any 'work thread' of which I'm aware.

The experiment that I was GOING to do - was take 2 20 gallon aquariums - with various LOW concentrations of ammonia - gradually increasing them until they were within the low toxic range for that fish (for example - percula clowns - the toxicity of ammonia is well known). Then adding Prime and observing each tank as the concentration increased. Which would (IMHO) be the way to prove that Prime does or not 'detoxify' ammonia. I did not do it - becasue - I could already hear the ethical outcry. I was going to find bait fish - that I could acclimate to salt water - to do the experiment - but also could not do that. So - still debating that.

 

[LRT]

In order for me to disprove something - you have to tell me what you want me to do. There is not one instance of which I'm aware where I've discredited anyone - please feel free to quote it for me if you like - or point out the 'work thread' that I disagreed with - that you want me to disprove? For example Dan and @taricha's thread - I said there could be some problems based on what I researched from Seneye and Seachem. I spent some time (hours) doing research and pointed it out to them. Not once did I say there results were 'wrong'. I pointed out why the conclusion they made (which is that Prime does not detoxify free ammonia) might not be true. Thats it. I believe the results they did - I believe that if I repeated that experiment - I would get the same results. If I bought a Seneye, my strong guess is that I would get the same results as everyone else. I do not disbelieve - or discredit any 'work thread' of which I'm aware.

The experiment that I was GOING to do - was take 2 20 gallon aquariums - with various LOW concentrations of ammonia - gradually increasing them until they were within the low toxic range for that fish (for example - percula clowns - the toxicity of ammonia is well known). Then adding Prime and observing each tank as the concentration increased. Which would (IMHO) be the way to prove that Prime does or not 'detoxify' ammonia. I did not do it - becasue - I could already hear the ethical outcry. I was going to find bait fish - that I could acclimate to salt water - to do the experiment - but also could not do that. So - still debating that.

You lost me at the agenda stuff.
Only way to get that back is an actual working attempt to disprove what i and many other claim is false.
Until then I'm going to go look up the word for folks that do this in the scientific community and use that word in response to all your posts from here.
One word. Hang on let me go find that

 

[MnFish1]

I absoloutely do see the signifance in this and everything @Lasse has said.
I think what some folks are more looking to try and figure out are things like what Lasse did with his 15 step method. Crushes the 2ppm dose of ammonia and wait approach. Gets us closer to understanding what's happening and what we really do see our systems doing on a much more personal level with measurements of light feedings and bioloads. The geeky stuff.

I think its fairly evident that the 2ppm method is at least in part designed based on the (IMHO remote) possibility that in a tank with lets say dry rock, and bottled bacteria that fish loss could occur. Thus - if you go through all the steps without fish and corals, you can be 'more confident' - that you can safely add things.

As we've discussed here, though - lots of things besides Dr. Tims bacteria take up ammonia - coral, algae, other heterotrophic bacteria, archaea - and more - that we don't take into account. Thus - back to the topic at hand (and my agenda) - I would much rather talk about new ways to use those things - as compared to reinventing the wheel (i.e. discounting people that use Dr. Tim's or bottled bacteria multiple times)- because - even with no work threads - as @Lasse has said - using fish from the start is not a new concept - even before bottled bacteria.

 

[MnFish1]

You lost me at the agenda stuff.
Only way to get that back is an actual working attempt to disprove what i and many other claim is false.
Until then I'm going to go look up the word for folks that do this in the scientific community and use that word in response to all your posts from here.
One word. Hang on let me go find that

Start reading the words. I said - I have no disagreement with the work threads - so I have nothing to 'disprove'. Why is that lost on you? Again I think this is the 3rd or 4th time - NAME ONE CLAIM YOU'VE MADE THAT I'VE SAID IS 'FALSE'

 

[ReefGeezer]

I absoloutely do see the signifance in this and everything @Lasse has said.
I think what some folks are more looking to try and figure out are things like what Lasse did with his 15 step method. Crushes the 2ppm dose of ammonia and wait approach. Gets us closer to understanding what's happening and what we really do see our systems doing on a much more personal level with measurements of light feedings and bioloads. The geeky stuff.

It seems to me that Lasse's method simply manages the bioload increase over time. I'm not sure the bioload has to remain light.

I was in the dry rock, 2 PPM ammonia, bacteria and wait crowd. I works, but I can see there are more effective methods. Some hybrid of Lasse's 15 Steps will someday guide the start of my next new system. Too bad it's too late for my current one. All the stuff I've read about cycling in this thread and others have lead me to this conclusion and I thank everyone for that. I have learned quite a bit. F

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This why Lasse is right about nitrites being so important to measure. All we can do is simplify the system far enough to the point where a measurement could be an indicator for an incoming problem. Nitrites high/rising means either potentially more NO3 incoming when NOB's catch up which in many tanks means more algae or other pest or it could mean potentially more NH4/3 incoming when NOB's drop further behind which could result in dead fish.

I don't agree. Can you cite any examples where these hypotheses of yours actually turned out to be true and useful?

I see no benefit to measuring nitrite except for:

1. Fun (chemistry is fun for some of us)
2. To ensure the accuracy of nitrate measurements that are interfered with by nitrite

Anything else is best handled other ways.

If you care about ammonia, measure ammonia. If you care about nitrate, measure nitrate.

 

[LRT]

It seems to me that Lasse's method simply manages the bioload increase over time. I'm not sure the bioload has to remain light.

I was in the dry rock, 2 PPM ammonia, bacteria and wait crowd. I works, but I can see there are more effective methods. Some hybrid of Lasse's 15 Steps will someday guide the start of my next new system. Too bad it's too late for my current one. All the stuff I've read about cycling in this thread and others have lead me to this conclusion and I thank everyone for that. I have learned quite a bit. F

I've found it doesn't need to remain light. In fact I haven't been able to disrupt it once fully cycled for livestock using the ammonia from peak to 0 approach.
I probably could break it if I put in 10 tangs irresponsibly though.

 

[Lasse]

So - anyone suggesting that I've been telling new reefers to be 'fearful' of a cycle, or predicting 'stalled cycles', or stating new reefers should believe that API or other liquid tests is not being truthful (at best) - and deliberately misleading at worst.

Exactly - those that says so are misleading and try to discredit you.

It seems to me that Lasse's method simply manages the bioload increase over time. I'm not sure the bioload has to remain light.

Exactly - just see my build thread

I don't agree. Can you cite any examples where these hypotheses of yours actually turned out to be true and useful?

I see no benefit to measuring nitrite except for:

1. Fun (chemistry is fun for some of us)
2. To ensure the accuracy of nitrate measurements that are interfered with by nitrite

Anything else is best handled other ways.

If you care about ammonia, measure ammonia. If you care about nitrate, measure nitrate.

I disagree with only two points - I will add some more

3 To know that the nitrification cycle is complete and seamless in a start up
4 Nitrification and especially the second step is one of the most sensitive microbiological processes in our aquarium. A disturbance in that process can indicate more serious trouble ahead. Personally - because I have measured nitrite levels - I have discover one overdosing of iodine at my job (normally NO2 concentration rise from normal 0.03 to 0,8 - warning and looking for reasons) - found a empty bottle of iodine (should been nearly full) and later iodine measurements show the overdose. Nothing was damaged by the overdose - fish and corals survive but the findings lead to massive WC in that system

Another event when the NO2 level arise in my hometank - the denitrification filter did not work well.

If you care about nitrate, measure nitrate.

And as you say - if measuring NO3 - you need to measure NO2 because of interference with nitrate readings - especially if you aim to have a nitrate concentration below 5 ppm

Sincerely Lasse

 

[CnidaChris]

I have never seen a positive number on my nitrite tests. Maybe an issue with the test (Red Sea)? I have seen positives on ammonia and on nitrate ( seen it over 50ppm after the unfortunate loss of livestock due to Hurricane Ida). Since it has always registered as 0 I stopped wasting my time measuring it.

 

[LRT]

Start reading the words. I said - I have no disagreement with the work threads - so I have nothing to 'disprove'. Why is that lost on you? Again I think this is the 3rd or 4th time - NAME ONE CLAIM YOU'VE MADE THAT I'VE SAID IS 'FALSE'

Again I could care less about anything you have to say, you said it all with the agenda thing and shown plenty what your agenda has been here through pretty much every page of this thread as well as others that have been linked.
Show me an experiment to back up your belittlement claims of the work that users here have done to confirm seneye nh3 readings at .001. You sat in this thread just 2-3 pages ago with another user belittling and disrespecting that work for all to see.
Troll defined. I dont feel bad for you

 

[CnidaChris]

My recommendation for starting a new tank would be to always seed it with “live” rock from either another tank or the ocean. As long as you seed it appropriately there is no need to follow the excessive waits I see recommended frequently online. I would however recommend stocking it piecemeal and not throwing the entire stock of your LFS into your tank at once.

I have also ran into the need in the past to set up hospital tank on the fly and due to the medications being used I could not introduce any biomedia. In that case a simple SeaChem ammonia monitor and daily water changes saw me through it with zero losses.

 

[MnFish1]

Again I could care less about anything you have to say, you said it all with the agenda thing and shown plenty what your agenda has been here through pretty much every page of this thread as well as others that have been linked.
Show me an experiment to back up your belittlement claims of the work that users here have done to confirm seneye nh3 readings at .001. You sat in this thread just 2-3 pages ago with another user belittling and disrespecting that work for all to see.
Troll defined. I dont feel bad for you

I would suggest that you re-use the ignore button. Because I have never belittled anything. Perhaps a counseling session or 2? BTW - so I'm not accused of being mean - I suggested a counseling session because in the first sentence you said you 'could care less about anything I have to say' - and then ask me to show you an experiment that I never said' (i.e. I've said - I have no doubt about the Seneye .001 readings, etc. are correct). you also said you were clicking the ignore button - but then keep talking - lol - maybe I will use it.

 

[LRT]

I have never seen a positive number on my nitrite tests. Maybe an issue with the test (Red Sea)? I have seen positives on ammonia and on nitrate ( seen it over 50ppm after the unfortunate loss of livestock due to Hurricane Ida). Since it has always registered as 0 I stopped wasting my time measuring it.

Great question ive never tested for nitrites and tried to ask if anyone with lab grade equipment could explain how it looks in relationship to ammonia in a healthy thriving reef and didn't see an answer. Id love to know how the seamless numbers corelate with each other to have a better idea when testing.

 

[LRT]

I would suggest that you re-use the ignore button. Because I have never belittled anything. Perhaps a counseling session or 2? BTW - so I'm not accused of being mean - I suggested a counseling session because in the first sentence you said you 'could care less about anything I have to say' - and then ask me to show you an experiment that I never said' (i.e. I've said - I have no doubt about the Seneye .001 readings, etc. are correct). you also said you were clicking the ignore button - but then keep talking - lol - maybe I will use it.

Probably a good idea you do.
You literally did sit in the thread with the Zoid doctor belittling the seneye nh3 findings all the way down to claiming its not even real work at all.
You can't clean that conversation up.
Its disrespectful for the reefers that did the work. Its dangerous to the community and reefers looking for better ways of taking accurate readings. Most of all its embarrassing for you.
I get it.
I would be too

 

[MnFish1]

Probably a good idea you do.
You literally did sit in the thread with the Zoid doctor belittling the seneye nh3 findings all the way down to claiming its not even real work at all.
You can't clean that conversation up.
Its disrespectful for the reefers that did the work. Its dangerous to the community and reefers looking for better ways of taking accurate readings. Most of all its embarrassing for you.
I get it.
I would be too

I'm not at all embarrassed. By the way just so you know - the main topic on a discussion board is 'a thread'. So - when you say things like this above - I have no clue what you're talking about. This board doesn't have 'sub-threads' - it leads to misunderstandings about who is saying what to whom - especially when one of the posters never quotes to whom he is replying. So there was no 'thread' where I belittled anyone with Dr. Z. Period. There is only one thread here Its your thread. But - I'm happy to say I will be using your suggestion.