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

[Soren]

Hi Soren thank you for asking sir.
I've quoted the super pertinent answers to alot of the questions you, garf and geezer have asked here.
As well as simple methodology and instructions for anyone to confirm seneye nh3 results with 0 Api ammonia test kit results.
Super glad to have you along

I think you are missing my point/question? I am not asking whether we have measured the results with different test kits, I am asking how we verify the validity of the precision of a testing method to begin with? Do we have specific means, such as chemical equations, that are able to be measured to test whether our testing method is actually valid to the stated precision? How do we know if a testing method needs calibration? What is the reliable standard for comparison?

A piece of testing equipment could be ascribed a false level of precision that indicates better granularity than is actually proveable while all measures taken with the equipment would still show that level of precision and fool the user into a false sense of reliability. I am not saying this is the case for sure with Seney, but I do wonder how they proved such a fine level of precision. Obviously, I count the exact precision of a color-chart test from reagent as fairly imprecise since there are too many variables between users.

 

[ReefGeezer]

Looks like all but the faithful are bailing on this thread. I'm out also. So that I doesn't look like a hit & run, I'll respond to any direct comments or question from these final thoughts:

1. I see some value in getting away from the dead rock, ammonia, bacteria, & wait cycle method;
2. I see more value in something like Lasse's 15 Step methodology;
3. I don't see any value in forecasting cycle completion regardless of the method it is calculated;
4. I don't see value in experiments to validate or set some timeline for cycling processes; and
5. Everyone should understand their test kits/meters and their limitations, and make sure they are not making false conclusions.

Note here that 1&2 above represent a shift in my thinking. For this I am grateful that I suffered through the rest of the noise.

 

[MnFish1]

Wouldn’t an acceptable substitute for rigid experiment be hundreds of cycles with an assigned start date we can track after completion? These animals are so sensitive their survival is a fine measure, and it won’t be hard to set a comparative if someone wants to make a fish tank with all dry rocks and sand, no cycle, add two clowns and some cuc and feed them

do it in a nano like half our logged cycles are in nanos


that contrast in outcome establishes fine proof. Not four examples, that could be luck

but four hundred pages is different, that cant be luck it’s not possible. We are able to land any cycle within total comfort levels for any animals involved and though no counter testing digitally is available, today’s only present digital nh3 meter that registers out to thousandths agrees in solid pattern.

I think we have retro data available for proofing. New data isn’t needed


something that’s been underway for years doesn’t need to be validated today.

Yes and No. You can 'say' whatever you want.

You above say most of your tanks are 'nano' - which may behave completely differently than larger tanks with larger fish, etc. IF you had hundreds of tanks started with Seneye - of multiple sizes, bio loads, methods (dry vs live, etc, bacteria vs none, etc etc) - AND all of the cycles were complete by your definition (which I assume is a Seneye reading of 'zero') with NO fish loss - I guess you could say 'according to my definition of 'cycled'', a 'cycle' is complete after 10 days.

BUT - the true answer probably lies in the difference between a prospective trial and a retrospective review. Your information while great to have - is a retrospective review - and is susceptible to all kinds of problems (But still provides useful information). You don't have to believe me you can google it. One problem is that you aren't looking at 'ALL' cycles out there - only the people that have asked you a question. So - people that haven't asked you - or gotten your advice may have failed miserably. Thats only one potential issue. Additionally, there are different bio loads, experience levels, dry rock, live rock dead sand, live sand, etc. AND IMHO - most importantly an entire group of people that believe that nothing in the hobby happens fast - so they do not push bioload, and their tanks may have 'cycled' if they had done nothing. So - you could have 100's of people putting a goby into a 10 gallon tank - and there was no ammonia after to days - thats totally different than a 200 gallon tank with no coral and 7 large fish.

BTW - as I said in my other post doing prospective trials are expensive, difficult, and very few people have the resources time or money to do them properly, correctly.

 

[LRT]

I would expect some fails in the anecdotal works if they left room for fails or were on a continuum of harms where only some cycles worked

the pattern is the proof of dates, toxicity, animal behavior and long term outcome tracking compliance.

Do you consider this a study of accuracy vs anecdote:

I'm not worried about the fails at all. All test kits and tools of measurement are going to show certain levels of inaccuracy. We have discerned that from this thread especially.

What's important here and what I think @Soren is getting to is more proof of the observations many of us have seen.
Through repetition in many quick start tanks I've learned to trust what im seeing as confirmed by Api/Seneye and discern whats wrong had something not made sense.
There is absoloutely no question in my mind the same results would be see across countless experiments.

 

[LRT]

I think you are missing my point/question? I am not asking whether we have measured the results with different test kits, I am asking how we verify the validity of the precision of a testing method to begin with? Do we have specific means, such as chemical equations, that are able to be measured to test whether our testing method is actually valid to the stated precision? How do we know if a testing method needs calibration? What is the reliable standard for comparison?

A piece of testing equipment could be ascribed a false level of precision that indicates better granularity than is actually proveable while all measures taken with the equipment would still show that level of precision and fool the user into a false sense of reliability. I am not saying this is the case for sure with Seney, but I do wonder how they proved such a fine level of precision. Obviously, I count the exact precision of a color-chart test from reagent as fairly imprecise since there are too many variables between users.

Idk Soren all I have is lobby grade tools in front of me. All I have to work with is Seneye and Api kit to test ammonia with.
All I can deduce from my testing is Seneye reads .001 nh3 when Api reads 0 concentrations of ammonia side by side in same tank. Repetitively.
Thats all I have to go with for now.
Would be awesome for someone with lab grade equipment verify all test kits and give us numbers on how the test kits at our disposal track out to lab grade equipment.

 

[Soren]

I would expect some fails in the anecdotal works if they left room for fails or were on a continuum of harms where only some cycles worked

the pattern is the proof of dates, toxicity, animal behavior and long term outcome tracking compliance.

Do you consider this a study of accuracy vs anecdote:

Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

Call me old school, back in the day we placed a deli shrimp in a tank to kick start the cycle. When tank reached 1.5-2 ppm ammonia we pulled it out and waited sometimes weeks to months for bacteria to colonize and drop ammonia and nitrites down to 0 to make tank safe for livestock. With recent...

www.reef2reef.com

From that thread, we accept the end date of the cycle, the bioload carry date, as the date of wait where a full water change can’t undo filtration.
Maturation continues in all systems after the cycle ends. End of cycle=can begin reefing ethically with no harm to animals, and their behavior always shows it.

so until a better thread exists, that’s the current accepted terminology as I see it. yes I know Lasse does not agree


that thread meets exactly the terms of a valid experiment, best as possible for at least setting completion expectations for different brands of bacteria.

Yes, that thread is what I am requesting as scientific experimentation as diametrically opposed to the anecdotes of "work threads" from other users. I am not saying the "work threads" did not result in success but rather questioning how specific of a conclusion can be drawn from such threads as opposed to general anecdote-based opinion.

This experiment was done in a controlled experiment by someone with some reliability of experience behind his name with the tested variables and equipment/methods clearly stated. If others have a differing opinion than the drawn conclusion, they could address it to a specific variable they find questionably controlled.
This is one specific experimental method that tests the data we need to continue to gather.

 

[Soren]

Idk Soren all I have is lobby grade tools in front of me. All I have to work with is Seneye and Api kit to test ammonia with.
All I can deduce from my testing is Seneye reads .001 nh3 when Api reads 0 concentrations of ammonia side by side in same tank. Repetitively.
Thats all I have to go with for now.
Would be awesome for someone with lab grade equipment verify all test kits and give us numbers on how the test kits at our disposal track out to lab grade equipment.

That is valid and understood. I think this is why there has been some issue with what you have shared on this thread, since it would seem that you have defended the precision of the Seneye, particularly down to .001, without information about how that precision is verified. I am quite certain that the concerns shared by @MnFish1 and @Lasse about the Seneye were directly related to the question if that level of precision is actually proveable.

Maybe I also missed part of the original question as well. By comparing Seneye readings of .001 to API readings of zero, are you saying that you count Seneye as reliable a measure of zero ammonia for practical purposes as API or saying that Seneye is more reliable for measuring ammonia levels because of the .001 level of precision?

 

[LRT]

That is valid and understood. I think this is why there has been some issue with what you have shared on this thread, since it would seem that you have defended the precision of the Seneye, particularly down to .001, without information about how that precision is verified. I am quite certain that the concerns shared by @MnFish1 and @Lasse about the Seneye were directly related to the question if that level of precision is actually proveable.

Maybe I also missed part of the original question as well. By comparing Seneye readings of .001 to API readings of zero, are you saying that you count Seneye as reliable a measure of zero ammonia for practical purposes as API or saying that Seneye is more reliable for measuring ammonia levels because of the .001 level of precision?

Precisely in the application and usage i shared. Yes.
If I have 2 units of control measurements within the degree of .001 in same tank side by side.
I have to take that for face value

 

[brandon429]

Api guided that whole study/ boost for api proponents

he sure did convince me too using api. I like how we didn’t need fancy gear to arrive at patterned measures for the ways we set up tanks nowadays by and large. The normal api kit worked


It would be neat to see a nitrite mediated study done just the same way. Timing and consistency would be neat to see

 

[Soren]

I'm not worried about the fails at all. All test kits and tools of measurement are going to show certain levels of inaccuracy. We have discerned that from this thread especially.

What's important here and what I think @Soren is getting to is more proof of the observations many of us have seen.
Through repetition in many quick start tanks I've learned to trust what im seeing as confirmed by Api/Seneye and discern whats wrong had something not made sense.
There is absoloutely no question in my mind the same results would be see across countless experiments.

My opinion is that any fails are a great detriment to anecdotal evidence unless we always apply confirmation bias to consider them outliers or bad data points and do not include them in our conclusions, which, to me, is very ingenuine. They need to be addressed and show the need for experimental control and peer accountability.

What you have built through experience is what I have found in other experiences and hope to learn in this hobby: You gain enough experience to know more about the subject than you can explain in words to someone just starting out. Sometimes you just "feel" or "know" the right answer, though you cannot explain why. This is very valuable and helpful for each individual and relates to the continued learning, but is very difficult to use as proof of an idea to someone else, especially if the other has different unexplainable "feelings" or "knowing" based on different personal experiences that may sometimes still be based on the same science though not clearly understood in measurable data.

This is what I would like to build at the same time as my learning in this hobby: more measurable data to define the details of personal experience.

 

[MnFish1]

I am quite certain that the concerns shared by @MnFish1 and @Lasse about the Seneye were directly related to the question if that level of precision is actually proveable.

Actually, I said - I agree with @LRT an @brandon429 on their conclusion - that 'cycles' by their definition can be completed by day 10 - especially with bacteria added... And CERTAINLY - with a total tank transfer, and most likely with live rock.

As to the precision and accuracy of the Seneye - The Seneye has somehow become the 'God'. I'm not going to go through the conversations I've had with Seneye - about some of the things that cause erroneous results, nor the other thread about the pH being incorrect with bottled bacteria, etc, etc, etc. That was not the main focus of my comments.

Though I'll fully admit, some of my comments have been somewhat snarky, many have been complimentary to the OP and others with which there is perceived (key word) disagreement. My posts - I believe were perceived as negative when I said something (paraphrased) - like - why do all threads talking about cycling have to be reduced to 'We already have all the answers, everyone is doing it wrong, we have work threads to prove it'. I do not think that was taken well. Somehow that was construed as 'I don't believe the work threads' - which is not the case - and I've explained my disagreement with some of them.

One of my comments I have made on many threads in many posts is that the mantra 'nothing good happens fast in this hobby' - has probably caused more harm than good. Cycling theory being a prime example. So frankly, I don't get the animosity, and frankly - I don't understand on an English language basis many of the terms being used that are not 'commonly defined in the reef community'. IMO - this is also part of the confusion about who is saying what.

 

[LRT]

My opinion is that any fails are a great detriment to anecdotal evidence unless we always apply confirmation bias to consider them outliers or bad data points and do not include them in our conclusions. They need to be addressed and show the need for experimental control and peer accountability.

What you have built through experience is what I have found in other experiences and hope to learn in this hobby: You gain enough experience to know more about the subject than you can explain in words to someone just starting out. Sometimes you just "feel" or "know" the right answer, though you cannot explain why. This is very valuable and helpful for each individual and relates to the continued learning, but is very difficult to use as proof of an idea to someone else, especially if the other has different unexplainable "feelings" or "knowing" based on different personal experiences that may sometimes still be based on the same science though not clearly understood in measurable data.

This is what I would like to build at the same time as my learning in this hobby: more measurable data to define the details of personal experience.

Understood Soren thank you.
Why I got so irritated with certain posters is the repetitive testing through charts and personal observations have been super inline with the same as one another. That is was being dismissed as non sense. And not being taken at face value for what it is. The only charted and recorded personal observations we have.
It accounts for everything we have discussed in the applications for usage in this thread.

Remember Randy posted in here some pages back that you can cycle a tank both ways. Many ways actually as we have learned some really great ideas have been proposed in this thread and backed up with not only results but papers to get super geeky about stocking tanks intelligently with healthy corals and what they actually love.
If you want to cycle with ammonia cycle with ammonia. Nh3 is toxic. Seneye gives us the opportunity to see the non toxic form nh4. Its smart enough to differentiate between the 2.

 

[LRT]

Api guided that whole study/ boost for api proponents

he sure did convince me too using api. I like how we didn’t need fancy gear to arrive at patterned measures for the ways we set up tanks nowadays by and large. The normal api kit worked


It would be neat to see a nitrite mediated study done just the same way. Timing and consistency would be neat to see

I'm going to be "testing nitrites for fun" from here on out in my specific application of small measured feedings because I realize when it comes down to splitting hairs in my particular application, testing for nitrites is basicly a "mute point".
I know that its a mute point because I've cycled nh3.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, that thread is what I am requesting as scientific experimentation as diametrically opposed to the anecdotes of "work threads" from other users. I am not saying the "work threads" did not result in success but rather questioning how specific of a conclusion can be drawn from such threads as opposed to general anecdote-based opinion.

This experiment was done in a controlled experiment by someone with some reliability of experience behind his name with the tested variables and equipment/methods clearly stated. If others have a differing opinion than the drawn conclusion, they could address it to a specific variable they find questionably controlled.
This is one specific experimental method that tests the data we need to continue to gather.

I helped design the bottle in a bacteria myth or fact study. There were a couple false starts. After a lot of hard work by @Dr. Reef , myself and others (Dr. Reef did all of the hard work !!).

But - if you read the actual full thread - you will see a lot of back and forth between people - and a lot of similar comments suggesting that anyone suggesting a different protocol was 'derailing' the thread.

Paraphrasing that idea - at first 8 ppm ammonia was used - and none of the products worked well. If one had stopped there - the conclusion would have been 'bottled bacteria dose not work'. Then - after working with the companies involved - it was noted that ammonia > 5 ppm can inhibit products. So the study was redone with 4 ppm. One product outperformed - others SEEMED to be fails. Then - it was repeated again - this time adding ammonia AND a carbon source - and nearly every one processed ammonia properly. The only reason this was successful was because of input from multiple people - including the companies making the product - and the willingness of everyone to realize that 'experiments' are designed to be critiqued, altered and refined - and that thats not 'personal' when that happens.

 

[Garf]

But - if you read the actual full thread - you will see a lot of back and forth between people - and a lot of similar comments suggesting that anyone suggesting a different protocol was 'derailing' the thread.

Paraphrasing that idea - at first 8 ppm ammonia was used - and none of the products worked well. If one had stopped there - the conclusion would have been 'bottled bacteria dose not work'. Then - after working with the companies involved - it was noted that ammonia > 5 ppm can inhibit products. So the study was redone with 4 ppm. One product outperformed - others SEEMED to be fails. Then - it was repeated again - this time adding ammonia AND a carbon source - and nearly every one processed ammonia properly. The only reason this was successful was because of input from multiple people - including the companies making the product - and the willingness of everyone to realize that 'experiments' are designed to be critiqued, altered and refined - and that thats not 'personal' when that happens.

Where did the phosphate come from, do you think? There must have been some utilized.

Such as;

https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03003.x

 

[Soren]

Actually, I said - I agree with @LRT an @brandon429 on their conclusion - that 'cycles' by their definition can be completed by day 10 - especially with bacteria added... And CERTAINLY - with a total tank transfer, and most likely with live rock.

As to the precision and accuracy of the Seneye - The Seneye has somehow become the 'God'. I'm not going to go through the conversations I've had with Seneye - about some of the things that cause erroneous results, nor the other thread about the pH being incorrect with bottled bacteria, etc, etc, etc. That was not the main focus of my comments.

Though I'll fully admit, some of my comments have been somewhat snarky, many have been complimentary to the OP and others with which there is perceived (key word) disagreement. My posts - I believe were perceived as negative when I said something (paraphrased) - like - why do all threads talking about cycling have to be reduced to 'We already have all the answers, everyone is doing it wrong, we have work threads to prove it'. I do not think that was taken well. Somehow that was construed as 'I don't believe the work threads' - which is not the case - and I've explained my disagreement with some of them.

One of my comments I have made on many threads in many posts is that the mantra 'nothing good happens fast in this hobby' - has probably caused more harm than good. Cycling theory being a prime example. So frankly, I don't get the animosity, and frankly - I don't understand on an English language basis many of the terms being used that are not 'commonly defined in the reef community'. IMO - this is also part of the confusion about who is saying what.

I think I understand your position and see quite close to eye-to-eye on this thread. Just to be clear, the only reason I mentioned your name in my previous post is that I thought I recalled some of your comments being concerned about whether the Seneye is as precise as claimed. I feel like you have made your points quite clear.

As I learn more, I am also wondering more about the mantra of patience. There are some applications in the hobby where this seems valid, but there are definitely some areas where it does not seem valid.
I tend to rephrase the mantra, "The only way good things happen fast in the hobby is after intense research and experience, either personal or through advice from an experienced mentor, while understanding relevant risks. If you don't want to do your own vast amounts of research, don't expect anything good to happen very fast at all in this hobby."

I helped design the bottle in a bacteria myth or fact study. There were a couple false starts. After a lot of hard work by @Dr. Reef , myself and others (Dr. Reef did all of the hard work !!).

But - if you read the actual full thread - you will see a lot of back and forth between people - and a lot of similar comments suggesting that anyone suggesting a different protocol was 'derailing' the thread.

Paraphrasing that idea - at first 8 ppm ammonia was used - and none of the products worked well. If one had stopped there - the conclusion would have been 'bottled bacteria dose not work'. Then - after working with the companies involved - it was noted that ammonia > 5 ppm can inhibit products. So the study was redone with 4 ppm. One product outperformed - others SEEMED to be fails. Then - it was repeated again - this time adding ammonia AND a carbon source - and nearly every one processed ammonia properly. The only reason this was successful was because of input from multiple people - including the companies making the product - and the willingness of everyone to realize that 'experiments' are designed to be critiqued, altered and refined - and that thats not 'personal' when that happens.

Thanks for more background on that thread.

I absolutely agree with your final statement!
Science seems to never be able to prove an absolute, but the closest we come to proof is through repeated failed attempts to disprove the hypotheses through experimental means that are constantly critiqued, altered, and refined in order to have much more than just personal opinion.

My opinion is that counterpoints acceptably disproven are more beneficial to an argument than the original points attempting to be proven (within potential biases).

 

[LRT]

@Soren I Can't see the posts being quoted up top but I can attest to the precision of seneye as I have observed same observations as stated in post #784 by another user-


"People don't understand the difference between precision and accuracy. Seneye is very precise but not accurate without trimming. You can easily nail down cycle times down to the hour and verify it with any standard test kit 95% of the time. I could back this up with data but you can always use the search function and find what I posted before...."

 

[MnFish1]

That is valid and understood. I think this is why there has been some issue with what you have shared on this thread, since it would seem that you have defended the precision of the Seneye, particularly down to .001, without information about how that precision is verified. I am quite certain that the concerns shared by @MnFish1 and @Lasse about the Seneye were directly related to the question if that level of precision is actually proveable.

As to the precision/accuracy. The first gradiation on API is .25 ppm (Total ammonia). Using a calculator (below) - at pH 8.1 and standard temp, etc that translates to a free ammonia of 0.01. With a lower pH - it is lower than that (ie, at pH 7.8, that represents a free ammonia of 0.007.

Free Ammonia Calculator

Aquarium calculator; Estimate the free (un-ionized) ammonia (NH3) concentration, given the total ammonia concentration.

www.hamzasreef.com

According to the Seneye - both of those levels measure 'SAFE'. So - even if the total ammonia WAS .25 on an API kit - why the stress? (that was an aside). at pH 7.8 according to the calculator) - even .5 ppm would be 'SAFE' according to the Seneye website (though not at higher pH)

I did not take the time to call Seneye in England as I have before to get the exact precision and accuracy numbers. I would THINK it would be better than trying to use API - and then the calculator to get the 'free ammonia'.

I cannot find good information on the accuracy and precision of the Seneye ammonia or the API test kits online.

BUT - I guess the case COULD be made - depending on the pH of the tank - to say that if the pH is 8.2 - or below - a .25 ppm measurement on API (especially if the color seems like its more between 0 and .25 - than .25 and .5 ppm - is safe for fish. I think where people get into problems is 'what if I add fish when its .25 - and then 3 days later its .5'. In other words in MY specific tank how can I be sure. So - they agonize over values that may not be an issue.

 

[MnFish1]

Where did the phosphate come from, do you think? There must have been some utilized.

Such as;

https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03003.x

Probably from a couple of places. Note the article you're looking at is for 'heterotrophic' as compared to autotrophic nitrifying bacteria - but - either way my GUESS - is that there is phosphorus in the bottled bacteria itself. And Certainly - there is phosphorous in the tanks where 'food' was added. Whether there was any leaching from sand / rock that was used I dont know.

 

[LRT]

I helped design the bottle in a bacteria myth or fact study. There were a couple false starts. After a lot of hard work by @Dr. Reef , myself and others (Dr. Reef did all of the hard work !!).

But - if you read the actual full thread - you will see a lot of back and forth between people - and a lot of similar comments suggesting that anyone suggesting a different protocol was 'derailing' the thread.

Paraphrasing that idea - at first 8 ppm ammonia was used - and none of the products worked well. If one had stopped there - the conclusion would have been 'bottled bacteria dose not work'. Then - after working with the companies involved - it was noted that ammonia > 5 ppm can inhibit products. So the study was redone with 4 ppm. One product outperformed - others SEEMED to be fails. Then - it was repeated again - this time adding ammonia AND a carbon source - and nearly every one processed ammonia properly. The only reason this was successful was because of input from multiple people - including the companies making the product - and the willingness of everyone to realize that 'experiments' are designed to be critiqued, altered and refined - and that thats not 'personal' when that happens.

Real quick as to not confuse the readers here in this thread any further.

We are not talking about Dr Reefs thread. If your going to talk inaccuracies in Dr reef thread you have to talk precision and accuracy in this thread as charted and observed in this and other threads.

We are talking about the precision and accuracy of lower concentrations that seneye is able to produce as confirmed by Api and other kits users have posted about.
Especially when calibrated!
Fact is you continue to side step, mislead and cast doubt on the observations, charts created by users observed by myself.
They totally confirm the observations made that seneye is in fact a better tool for measuring nh3 when used especially in this application.

Don't confuse the readers man I'm going to continue to put the train back on proper rails every step if the way.