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

[LRT]

You beat me to it. But then again I’ve already said you can instantly stock a tank if you use live rock.

The main thing I would like to design a test for is finding the lower and upper limits of bioload based on a given volume or surface area. I know the old rule was 1lb of rock per gallon, but we have seen minimalist aquascapes that seem to thrive.

edit: Aqua scales to Aquascapes

You may want to check out Neonrabbit seneye ammonia thread that's been linked here..

Seneye Experiments and Cycling

I got a seneye a few months back and accidentally over ordered some slides thinking they were expired... Long story short I have a ton of live rock, a fairly useless piece of equipment and a bad case of a desire to put some numbers behind cycling and experiment with some variables to determine...

www.reef2reef.com

He looked at specific weights and ammonia doses and gave charted concentration levels of nh3 with timelines
He even went a step further(for whatever reason) looking at different shapes and sizes and found some really interesting things. Things that I wouldn't have expected honestlty. Absoloutely brilliant honestly down closest to the most geekiest questions that have been asked here honestly.

I'm glad he looked at rubble for some reason

If your looking for real raw numbers I can tell you (at least in my observation with cured gulf live rock) that a handful of cured rubble(less than a lb) and a few cuc in a 10 gallon tank can cycle nh3 twice to confirmed 0 levels with only a cpl feedings of half a frozen cube or less. In less than 12 hrs.
That is fully capable of handling a 17 coral bioload with 1 fish without even moving from 0 nh3 in the right conditions with same feedings at 24hrs

 

[LRT]

Need more?
I want you to prove me right by trying to prove me wrong I really do.
In the interim heres 100 lbs cured gulf live rock with 4 fish, over 100 corals, 100 gallons done same exact way in 24hrs
Are we checking nitrites for fun here?
I never checked nitrites once.
2× 0 peak concentration of nh3 twice in 12 hrs and fully stocked using same measured feeds

 

[LRT]

Instacycle Challenge Thread Anyone?

Don't know where. Don't know when. Don't care with what. Let's figure out the details:D Brs did one in 48 hrs fully stocked. I've done one in 24 hrs. Just putting the feelers out there to see if I can get a few players. I dont care what tools you use. Ill be using fully mature, cycled and...

www.reef2reef.com

For the trolls control has been set by me Got any other?
Prove your words with work this time.
I fully came into this knowing I'd have to deal with r2r trolls. We all know who you are now just make sure your wearing your big boy pants this time

 

[Islandvib3s]

I felt I needed to share my experience with cycling tanks. I've cycled multiple different ways, bottled bacteria only, shrimp only,fish only, and now 100%ammonia. I've found the tanks that were cycled by big ammonia spikes have been alot more successful then using the bottled bacteria and adding stock. Successful meaning actually growing corals that being softies,LPS,SPS. However whenever I tried SPS in bottled bacteria tanks they've never were good outcomes or survived . I think bottled bacteria is good but just as a additive to actually cycling and getting those spikes(ammonia, nitrite,nitrate) so I just recycle my sumped nano jbj28 w/10ga sump and I used ammonia and spiked it to 8.0+ ppm. And its actually processed it within a week. Also using dry dead rock,crushed coral and sand. Biorock..keep in mind it was a recycle so I kept some of the stuff wet but no heater or circulation. Yesterday my nitrates were 40-80ppm and ammonia still 0 ppm.so I dosed it to 2ppm and in 24 hrs it was .25ppm. So I figured its processing as it should and did my water change 75% ,added some prime and a few tester corals. Torch,goniopora, mushies,gsp,AOG zoas. They were fluffy within +-30mins. I didn't get that type of reaction from the just bottled bacteria bottles.take this information as just information, im no professional and this is just what I've experienced. Current systems are 65L w/20ga sump(fowler atm,was just bottled bacteria and corals just hated this tank so I may recycle soon), 40breeder w/20L sump and add on frag/acclimating cube 16ga(this tank is thriving and cycled by die off of beginner mistakes and has plenty of ammonia spikes lol worse spike was a bristleworm trap with shrimp over night,all for 1 bristleworm lol). Currently recycling ammonia method 50 lowboy w/20T refugium display and 40breeder sump(tried bottled bacteria but corals were hating it aswell(thats why I added on a small frag system to my 40b) this cycle is a little slower so I may just spike it with ammonia again to be sure it gets the bacteria needed to be a work horse tank. Also have a 65breeder in my garage waiting to be built into a system and also 2 more 16ga cubes.oh and I cant forget my jbj dx12 I use to grow macroalgea in my garage lol I have cheato,ulva,caulerpa fern growing in it and I top off with tap mainly because its macroalgea. All my systems but that are on ro/di.lol little bit of a rant maybe but I wanted to share and in hopes this may help others.

 

[Lasse]

Minimal feedings building bioloads is insane. @Lasse maybe should win the nobel reef prize. He hasn't shared lab grade testing of his method but I can tell you its set up in a way that all bases are covered.

The 15 steps is not any secrets at all - it is years of experiences setting up everything from small freshwater tanks to 1400 000 000 L shark tanks plus setting up indoors fish farms and work in waste water treatment plants. I did not say that I not never have used lab testing in order to confirm what I´m doing - of cause I had. But I do not do it if I set up a small saltwater tank - it is not need for that. A simple mass balance calculation of input, worse case of scenario and knowing the physiology of fish reveals that the method is 100% safe - but it is all about feeding. The bacteria input (in one or another way) speed up the process. If you introduce an already working biofilm (living rock, used rock, used gravel, used water, living sand, working biofilter or whatever with a working biofilm) you can more or less instantly see the aquaria as started. This is not new knowledge - it have been used for ages - especially in alkaline freshwater (Malawi and Tanganyika cichlids there pH should be 8 +) there both free ammonia and nitrite can be in deadly concentrations.

Lasse have you tracked ammonia and nitrites with lab grade equipment through your light feed step?

For the fifty-eleven time - No - and will not try to do either because to do a Lab grade testing on the a tank using the 15 steps - it should not work because not even lab grade equipment can verify these low levels you get as I show in the post about precision, accuracy and LOD

I hope to uncover his secrets a little more precisely. The things he's not saying are important but I understand why he's not saying them.

What are I´m not saying, which secrets do I hide?

Everything I've discussed will most likely line up with his lab grade testing im sure of it!
Either way i can responsibly say in at least the application i laid out its pretty much a really mute point.

Me, @MnFish1 and others have basically the same opinion in this thread - however you consequently indicate that he is an internet troll (and maybe others) - not me. Why - I consequently disagree with you, I have not change my initial opinion even one inch.

I feel bad when you accuse people that try to argue around these things for trolling. Trolling is not - IMO - when you listen to what someone says and try to argue with that as a starpoint - as MnFish1 do in this thread. Trolling for me is when someone without new argues just repeat the same thing in post after post and trolling for me is also when someone is chosen just to be picked on, personally insulted, discredited and so on when others with the same opinion flying below the radar.

like how easy it is for non published folks to debate Randy’s link after trying to sub in a freshwater version. Lasse “sees it differently“ was the euphemism from another thread.

How do you know that either me or MnFish1 has been published in per view in scientific papers? We maybe have, we maybe not have - you have not a single idea of this. Maybe I am published in the field of nitrification - maybe - or maybe not. You have not a single idea of this. But I know - that´s enough for me. And I do know that my argumentation stand strong and I do know that I do not need to support my standpoints with name dropping. I have my opinion because I am convinced that good husbandry and welfare of the animals in our care says that you should not subject them to unnecessary suffering if possible. In the case of nitrite sublethal and possible stressing ability we know too less (IMO) in order to be sure that we do not subject them fore unnecessary suffering if we put them in an environment with high nitrite concentrations - even for a short time as 1 - 3 weeks. For me - it does not matter if even the Pope make a ban on me for this standpoint - I do not change my opinion based on that ban. In this thread - both Randy and I have clearly declared our standpoints according nitrite measurements. I think that we agree that we disagree in this case.

Fore me - it is unethical to recommend people to put fish in tanks there you know that the nitrification cycle is not seamless or that the method you use can cause stall in the process. The fifteen steps (or similar methods) are methods that - if followed according the feed and addition of some type of nitrification bacteria - do not produce any acute toxic or even sublethal toxic concentration of either NH3 or NO2. And if you anyway feel unsafe with using a fish - just use micro levels of chemical ammonia and slowly ramp it up. Keep the light off until you feel safe to introduce a CUC in that case This method works saltwater and in freshwater. It is a general method with billions of successful work thread around the globe - IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Thaxxx]

The 15 steps is not any secrets at all - it is years of experiences setting up everything from small freshwater tanks to 1400 000 000 L shark tanks plus setting up indoors fish farms and work in waste water treatment plants. I did not say that I not never have used lab testing in order to confirm what I´m doing - of cause I had. But I do not do it if I set up a small saltwater tank - it is not need for that. A simple mass balance calculation of input, worse case of scenario and knowing the physiology of fish reveals that the method is 100% safe - but it is all about feeding. The bacteria input (in one or another way) speed up the process. If you introduce an already working biofilm (living rock, used rock, used gravel, used water, living sand, working biofilter or whatever with a working biofilm) you can more or less instantly se the aquaria as started. This is not new knowledge - it have been used for ages - especially in alkaline freshwater (Malawi and Tanganyika cichlids there pH should be 8 +) there both free ammonia and nitrite can be in deadly concentrations.


For the fifty-eleven time - No - and will not try to do either because to do a Lab grade testing on the a tank using the 15 steps - it should not work because not even lab grade equipment can verify these low levels you get as I show in the post about precision, accuracy and LOD



What are I´m not saying, which secrets do I hide?


Me, @MnFish1 and others have basically the same opinion in this thread - however you consequently indicate that he is an internet troll (and maybe others) - not me. Why - I consequently disagree with you, I have not change my initial opinion even one inch.

I feel bad when you accuse people that try to argue around these things for trolling. Trolling is not - IMO - when you listen to what someone says and try to argue with that as a starpoint - as MnFish1 do in this thread. Trolling for me is when someone without new argues just repeat the same thing in post after post and trolling for me is also when someone is chosen just to be picked on, personally insulted, discredited and so on when others with the same opinion flying below the radar.


How do you know that either me or MnFish1 has been published in per view in scientific papers? We maybe have, we maybe not have - you have not a single idea of this. Maybe I am published in the field of nitrification - maybe - or maybe not. You have not a single idea of this. But I know - that´s enough for me. And I do know that my argumentation stand strong and I do know that I do not need to support my standpoints with name dropping. I have my opinion because I am convinced that good husbandry and welfare of the animals in our care says that you should not subject them to unnecessary suffering if possible. In the case of nitrite sublethal and possible stressing ability we know too less (IMO) in order to be sure that we do not subject them fore unnecessary suffering if we put them in an environment with high nitrite concentrations - even for a short time as 1 - 3 weeks. For me - it does not matter if even the Pope make a ban on me for this standpoint - I do not change my opinion based on that ban. In this thread - both Randy and I have clearly declared our standpoints according nitrite measurements. I think that we agree that we disagree in this case.

Fore me - it is unethical to recommend people to put fish in tanks there you know that the nitrification cycle is not seamless or that the method you use can cause stall in the process. The fifteen steps (or similar methods) are methods that - if followed according the feed and addition of some type of nitrification bacteria - do not produce any acute toxic or even sublethal toxic concentration of either NH3 or NO2. And if you anyway feel unsafe with using a fish - just use micro levels of chemical ammonia and slowly ramp it up. Keep the light off until you feel safe to introduce a CUC in that case This method works saltwater and in freshwater. It is a general method with billions of successful work thread around the globe - IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

That about sums it up.
CLOSED THREAD.

 

[brandon429]

@AlgaeBarn can you please reply to the question posed earlier about your immunity data/advice regarding nitrite


was freshwater and marine data transposed in the article on your site


when we @ Randy and ask about nitrite data we get responses and we need the same thing from you to be able to inspect claims

 

[MnFish1]

How do you know that either me or MnFish1 has been published in per view in scientific papers? We maybe have, we maybe not have - you have not a single idea of this. Maybe I am published in the field of nitrification - maybe - or maybe not.

My first publication of many was when I was in college. I then proceeded to design/help design hundreds of clinical trials both in the US and Europe. I also paid my way through college working in various labs among them chemistry - analytical and organic, and continued that into grad school. I'm not saying this to 'brag' - I'm saying it because I do know a bit about how to design an experiment and do an experiment, and determine the veracity of claims that are made by people after they have done an experiment. This is why. I posted the experiments I would do and why to test some of these hypotheses vis a vis this thread. Even doing 1/2 of those 'correctly' - with replication, and controls would be a lot of work.

I would suggest that if people want to do experiments they use at least some of the following steps:

1. My hypothesis is 'Product x does not work, because the ingredients are just inert ingredients'
2. Design the experiment - part one - a positive control using a product that does work (if possible), part two a negative control with no product, and part 3 a study using Product X according to directions. Try not to add tests that 'prove' the hypothesis -but also tests that 'disprove' the hypothesis'.
3. Have a set endpoint i.e. what are you using to decide whether Product x work or not. That endpoint should be as close to what the product is supposed to do as possible. A recent thread is an example. The question was Does xxx contain fluconazole - the hypothesis was that it did. Numerous experiments were done which strongly suggest that there is another agent. BUT - none of those tests proved definitively that there was no fluconazole in the product. Which would have required a totally different experiment. Mentioning this - is not trolling its being used as an example.
4. Analyze the results
5. Make your conclusions - and prepare for comments positive and negative. Nearly every study produced in any major journal are commented upon and even criticized in a far more sometimes vicious manner than any of the comments here.

@Lasse - I guess I am a Norwegian troll lol.

 

[Lasse]

I guess I am a Norwegian troll

Yes indeed - therefore for you exclusive You will recognize it for sure



Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

And for us other



Sincerely Lasse

 

[LRT]

Like I said in the applications I've mentioned nitrites is an absoloute mute point.
Like Randy said measure nitrites for "fun" if and whenever you want to try and prove or disprove what ive said.

 

[MnFish1]

@AlgaeBarn can you please reply to the question posed earlier about your immunity data/advice regarding nitrite


was freshwater and marine data transposed in the article on your site


when we @ Randy and ask about nitrite data we get responses and we need the same thing from you to be able to inspect claims

The article is about Marine tanks. The link to the product they are selling is for Marine aquaria as far as I can tell - unless there is another Algaebarn article out there.

 

[LRT]

The 15 steps is not any secrets at all - it is years of experiences setting up everything from small freshwater tanks to 1400 000 000 L shark tanks plus setting up indoors fish farms and work in waste water treatment plants. I did not say that I not never have used lab testing in order to confirm what I´m doing - of cause I had. But I do not do it if I set up a small saltwater tank - it is not need for that. A simple mass balance calculation of input, worse case of scenario and knowing the physiology of fish reveals that the method is 100% safe - but it is all about feeding. The bacteria input (in one or another way) speed up the process. If you introduce an already working biofilm (living rock, used rock, used gravel, used water, living sand, working biofilter or whatever with a working biofilm) you can more or less instantly see the aquaria as started. This is not new knowledge - it have been used for ages - especially in alkaline freshwater (Malawi and Tanganyika cichlids there pH should be 8 +) there both free ammonia and nitrite can be in deadly concentrations.


For the fifty-eleven time - No - and will not try to do either because to do a Lab grade testing on the a tank using the 15 steps - it should not work because not even lab grade equipment can verify these low levels you get as I show in the post about precision, accuracy and LOD



What are I´m not saying, which secrets do I hide?


Me, @MnFish1 and others have basically the same opinion in this thread - however you consequently indicate that he is an internet troll (and maybe others) - not me. Why - I consequently disagree with you, I have not change my initial opinion even one inch.

I feel bad when you accuse people that try to argue around these things for trolling. Trolling is not - IMO - when you listen to what someone says and try to argue with that as a starpoint - as MnFish1 do in this thread. Trolling for me is when someone without new argues just repeat the same thing in post after post and trolling for me is also when someone is chosen just to be picked on, personally insulted, discredited and so on when others with the same opinion flying below the radar.


How do you know that either me or MnFish1 has been published in per view in scientific papers? We maybe have, we maybe not have - you have not a single idea of this. Maybe I am published in the field of nitrification - maybe - or maybe not. You have not a single idea of this. But I know - that´s enough for me. And I do know that my argumentation stand strong and I do know that I do not need to support my standpoints with name dropping. I have my opinion because I am convinced that good husbandry and welfare of the animals in our care says that you should not subject them to unnecessary suffering if possible. In the case of nitrite sublethal and possible stressing ability we know too less (IMO) in order to be sure that we do not subject them fore unnecessary suffering if we put them in an environment with high nitrite concentrations - even for a short time as 1 - 3 weeks. For me - it does not matter if even the Pope make a ban on me for this standpoint - I do not change my opinion based on that ban. In this thread - both Randy and I have clearly declared our standpoints according nitrite measurements. I think that we agree that we disagree in this case.

Fore me - it is unethical to recommend people to put fish in tanks there you know that the nitrification cycle is not seamless or that the method you use can cause stall in the process. The fifteen steps (or similar methods) are methods that - if followed according the feed and addition of some type of nitrification bacteria - do not produce any acute toxic or even sublethal toxic concentration of either NH3 or NO2. And if you anyway feel unsafe with using a fish - just use micro levels of chemical ammonia and slowly ramp it up. Keep the light off until you feel safe to introduce a CUC in that case This method works saltwater and in freshwater. It is a general method with billions of successful work thread around the globe - IMO.

Sincerely Lasse

You've already proven and admitted that testing nitrites in my application is a mute point.
Until you or anyone else for that matter wants to put a seneye in a tank and disprove my observations, whats already been charted and observed and reported on by many others.
Its all we have.
I am supremely confident when I say testing for nitrites in my applications and cycling nh3 with seneye and confirming nh3 concentrations with api test kit within .001 to themselves.
Yes "test nitrites for fun" if you want.
The "insignificance" of testing nitrites in my application has already been proven.

 

[brandon429]

This is Hawquatics tank

live rock skip cycle transfer two months ago

That’s real coralline it doesn’t form in two months in a dry start.
the cycle was set when he started the tank
looks like this today

tests like this today, false reads across the board. No prime used no ammonia dosing, Lasse do you believe these tests?

 

[brandon429]

This hobby doesn’t have a way to communicate test readings to us for nitrite using kits you said they could use Lasse. You can see plain as day the system isn’t stuck cycled, you must admit misreads prevent any reasonable exchange of reliable info in the majority of reefs not the minority.


the entire fake concept of a stalled cycle is from this above. Do those fish look harmed, the open corals burned? Their immunity has been compromised?
this sells ten thousand bottles of bac in fear response training

Algae barn isn’t showing up, we can’t use their links anymore and I may need to post some threads on their YouTube page to keep balance even handed so buyers don’t react to any slight reading as a fish immunity challenge


algae barn didn’t tell us about prime induced misreads, misreads in general etc.

Lasse denies that api can misread for nitrite.

 

[LRT]

I feel like the "significance of testing nitrites" with controlled measured feedings in the applications i described in this thread. Really did just become totally "irrelevant"
As Randy said if you want to cycle ammonia cycle ammonia. If you want to cycle nitrites cycle nitrites.
There are much better tools at our disposal to cycle nh3. Confirmed and charted!

What's relevant and 100% clear here is Randy is 1000% correct. He wrote the papers and did the work until someone disproves his work and shows us differently.
My applications prove it.
See my build thread

 

[LRT]

This is Hawquatics tank

live rock skip cycle transfer two months ago

That’s real coralline it doesn’t form in two months in a dry start.
the cycle was set when he started the tank
looks like this today

tests like this today, false reads across the board. No prime used no ammonia dosing, Lasse do you believe these tests?

How can anyone believe these tests fully and make that claim especially when by own admission they have never actually used the kits or done any verification as to the validity of the tests.

 

[brandon429]

What I have found is that test kits range in ability and accuracy, cycling charts don’t for the critical param (ammonia) and cycling reefs all follow a predictable timeline to safe bioload carry dates if they meet one of the common three or four arrangements we make to set up tanks

I like cycling without anyone’s testing input

seneye is just fun for retro proofing.


what varies are umpires calls. Not the biology, not the long term disease tracking in tanks based on how we cycled but how we listened to Jay regarding disease preps or not.


even after TAN conversion above that ammonia reading is wildly off. It’s my opinion that a third of total worldwide bottle bac sales are prompted by false motivation


such as claiming .35 ppm nitrite affects fish immunity, omitting misread data, and then not showing up to discuss/ algae barn

 

[MnFish1]

This is Hawquatics tank

live rock skip cycle transfer two months ago

That’s real coralline it doesn’t form in two months in a dry start.
the cycle was set when he started the tank
looks like this today

tests like this today, false reads across the board. No prime used no ammonia dosing, Lasse do you believe these tests?

I'm not quite sure why the tests are always displayed like that - because they are supposed to be read next to the card with directly downward light.

As to the test itself - I would not consider this a 'stalled cycle' - even with the pictures shown. Clearly - the ammonia is not reading 'zero' but - to me its reading .25 ppm which is safe. The nitrite is slightly elevated - but not to a level to cause any concern. And the nitrate is positive. I would think this tank is safe for fish based on these results. And - especially 2 clownfish. Which is an extremely low bioload for this size tank. IMHO - so what are we proving here?

 

[LRT]

What I have found is that test kits range in ability and accuracy, cycling charts don’t for the critical param (ammonia) and cycling reefs all follow a predictable timeline to safe bioload carry dates if they meet one of the common three or four arrangements we make to set up tanks

I like cycling without anyone’s testing input

seneye is just fun for retro proofing.


what varies are umpires calls. Not the biology, not the long term disease tracking in tanks based on how we cycled but how we listened to Jay regarding disease preps or not.


even after TAN conversion above that ammonia reading is wildly off. It’s my opinion that a third of total worldwide bottle bac sales are prompted by false motivation


such as claiming .35 ppm nitrite affects fish immunity, omitting misread data, and then not showing up to discuss/ algae barn

Never probably going to see that.
At this point it would mean we'd have to face the cold hard facts about what's been discussed and have an honest conversation about it.
Some have a real serious issue accepting the truth with dismissal even though the issues have been well posted on and observed for as long as I know as well as recorded and charted for all to see at this point.

Why don't people believe Randy I wonder? Cycle ammonia out of a new start tank. Stock it responsibly based on your numbers.
Nitrites truly are "insignificant" when specific applications that have been discussed in this thread are applied.
Know there is a better more precise tool at our disposal to cycle nh3 more efficiently.
See just how efficient that method is by simply clicking on my build thread.