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

[brandon429]

Reefers also need to be shown where cheap test kits foul, so they can anticipate

- any use of common water conditioners like prime affect readings

Cycle umpires usually never care to assess this during analyses


-when ammonia drops on your measure, thats cycled. You don’t wait for zero, the drop means relative to surface area and current we all employ, your cycle is under control. You specifically aren’t stalled just slightly above the safe zone. take no reaction, make no extra purchase to remedy the condition, it’s a false condition where performing TAN conversion on the interpreted readings handles 90% of the concerned stall posts.


-wait times before reporting, using fw vs marine backing cards impacts many stated levels, home lighting during assessment, reagent prep like shaking and verifying expiry dates, fill line in the test tube and how their actual arrangement has already been proofed on seneye posts all matter greatly in test kit training. How their param in questions squares on a cycling chart per number of days underwater matters as a benhmark

reefers need objective means to ensure their test cheap kits aren’t misleading.

 

[LRT]

@Paul B
You brought up a great point about what we are feeding.
Live clams have been in my feeding rotation ever since I seen you post about it. So have live worms when I can find them. This probably has very well attributed to the some of the things ive seen.

 

[LRT]

No magic from Haleys Comet needed here.
PH 7.9-8.3
Salt 1.025
Cal 350-450
Mag 1250 -1600
Alk 8.0-9.0
Nitrates around 5
Phosphates .03-.1
All for reef is all I dose now
Stability is key

I really don't care if this is transfer tank.
I'm seeing everything @Dan_P and @taricha has described across new surfaces in this tank. Ive duplicated exact same thing in countless tank set ups now. All this can be taken and applied and be extremely beneficial to anyone setting up new tank.
Once tank is ready to handle bioload and ready to be stocked responsibly. Stocking tank with corals and coral friendly fish from healthy thriving systems does give a reefer a huge advantage in getting proper things in tank when tank is ready and it will give you that leg up.

Thats all im saying and that's all I've been saying throughout this thread.
I'm super glad all my favorite people have joined the conversation here.
At the end of the day all I wanted to do is post something that could be useful for folks. Get folks thinking about things other than letting a tank sit and grow algae and waiting for that magic to happen.
What We've done is scientifically disprove some old myths here with real data
By the way a thought just occurred to me. My pufferfish actually loves all the living baby clams and bivalves it hunts nightly. That just happen to magically appear by themselves. Most of which I had no idea even existed but pufferfish reminds me as I have to clean up the messes a few times a week
Much love all

 

[DrZoidburg]

If you consider how large shrimp may be that is actually a substantial amount of nitrogen. Lots of bacteria. Certainly not 10 tangs. The clam idea is cool. I haven't read whole thing. Am I missing something where is the real data?

 

[attiland]

I would much rather use a dead clam than a shrimp because a clam is almost all guts and I want the gut bacteria which is why I feed my fish clams and never shrimp. Bottled bacteria (whatever that is) is not composed of gut bacteria because that specific bacteria is only found in guts.

Those 3 chemical measurements mean almost nothing to me. They just mean (as I said) you have enough bacteria in there to process that dead shrimp, clam or bottle of ammonia and nothing more.

If you then add that tang, lobster, lanternfish etc. it will take some time, maybe a few days or a week for the bacteria to grow to those quantities to process the wastes from those creatures and bacteria, are like me, but besides me being much better looking and I can dance, bacteria are stubborn and won't reproduce any faster no matter how much of anything you add.

If there are not enough "of the proper" bacteria, wastes will build up. Fish can handle that waste for a while as long as it isn't a ridiculous amount.

Eventually the bacteria will catch up to be able to process the waste from that one fish and you can add something else.

This process will not be done in 48 hours unless you have some new type of alien bacteria from Haley's Comet.

Even after your tank is all set up and you have a dozen fish swimming in there doing the macarana seemingly happy, the tank isn't cycled.

It may be for the criteria on these forums, but it is not, which is the reason new tanks, even if Jacques Cousteau himself sets it up with help from Noah, look lousy and are often on the disease forum.

Cycling those 3 chemicals isn't the main thing we need to think of.
But what do I know, maybe some of you guys have cycled a tank in the time it took you to read this.

I will be honest the one saltwater tank I have cycled in my life gives me no real ground to argue any of this and freshwater is slightly different in fact almost nonexistent but…

I think there is cycling and there is maturing.

cycle is a no issue. Big tank is easier small tank is harder in a sense how fast you can add livestock. I would go as fare is no reason to add any ammonia or dead anything to the tank ever if used battled bacteria as long as you keep the old school advice don’t more than double your bio load in a fortnight.

The rest of this is maturing and where gut bacteria real live rock, the whole frag stock of the LFS goes in in one go and all the rest starts to play.
And just to upset some of the hardcore old school there is bacterial products to make that faster too. But I have to admit nothing beats the mature rock from @Paul B ’s tank.

I do a lot of things based on my freshwater experience but trust me it is not that different. I just wish one day the test free method will be invented

 

[LRT]

If you consider how large shrimp may be that is actually a substantial amount of nitrogen. Lots of bacteria. Certainly not 10 tangs. The clam idea is cool. I haven't read whole thing. Am I missing something where is the real data?

Search out battlecorals water test results and how the old myth that old water can't be used to start a new tank has been smashed. That theory has been eradicated.
Granted not old water could and really shouldn't be used "common sensibly"
Then read through the pages and check out the papers @taricha posted and some of the work @Dan_P has been doing with surfaces.

The rest of the actual data i intend to provide. Really should habe done a better job at keeping records
Hopefully this thread has prompted some others to do so as well.

 

[DrZoidburg]

Search out battlecorals water test results and how the myth that old water can't be used to start a new tank. That theory has been eradicated.
Granted not old water could and really shouldn't be used "common sensibly"
Then read through the pages and check out the papers @taricha posted and some of the work @Dan_P has been doing with surfaces.

The rest of the actual data i intend to provide. Really should habe done a better job at keeping records
Hopefully this thread has prompted some others to do so as well.

I haven't read. I could agree to that though about 10% of bacteria to do the job are in water column. The rest you would need others.

 

[CnidaChris]

I think the idea of setting up a tank for months until it “cycles” and then dumping in livestock needs to go away. The bacteria that converts ammonia to nitrate needs a food source and is going to be limited in size by that food source. If you add something to the tank that provides additional nutrients the bacterial population will grow as long as it has space and is not outcompeted. As you add livestock you will have many “cycles” where the amount of ammonia produced triggers more bacterial growth until you reach a point where you have exceeded the capabilities of your ecosystem (due to size/space limitations).

The end goal is try to get our systems into as near a state of equilibrium as possible, which is why as we add things (livestock and food) we have to have some method of export (skimming, macro algae export, water changes). The “cycle” never ends, the requirements of input and output change as our systems grow.

If you start with live rock and live sand you can start stocking your tank slowly almost immediately as long as you don’t overwhelm the capability of your live rock to process ammonia.

Even in a fully cycled “mature” tank, if you add 30 fish at once you are going to have a die off and other issues.

 

[LRT]

I haven't read. I could agree to that though about 10% of bacteria to do the job are in water column. The rest you would need others.

@MnFish1 started another thread on this topic. Which i think is great and believe alot of semantics will be argued

I think what we all can agree on in this thread is that Battlecorals test results have completely crushed the old theory that old tank water cannot be used to start a new tank/system. That point is agreed correct?

 

[DrZoidburg]

I don't agree with that to be 100% proper. I see some possibility that particles in the water carry over some necessary bacteria. It does have some merit though.

 

[MnFish1]

Even at 50 years old my tank is still cycling. Of course I can add some fish, but when I do like this week I added 4 of them, the bacteria will grow to control that new load and if I remove 4 fish the bacteria will die off to compensate for the reduced load.

A 48 hour old tank can only support enough livestock that can reduce that amount of waste.
If you cycle with a dead shrimp, you only have enough bacteria in there to consume one dead shrimp and not 10 tangs.

If you add those tangs to early, they will die.

Search out battlecorals water test results and how the old myth that old water can't be used to start a new tank has been smashed. That theory has been eradicated.

As you add livestock you will have many “cycles” where the amount of ammonia produced triggers more bacterial growth until you reach a point where you have exceeded the capabilities of your ecosystem (due to size/space limitations).

1. Is it really true that people say not to use water from an established tank when setting up a new one? I've never heard it.

2. The idea that bacteria (nitrifying bacteria) only grow to the level of ammonia in the tank has been debated. I know some posters feel that they can just put water and rock in a tank - and its 'cycled' in 2 months, based on 'debris', etc falling in the tank and decomposing. I do not believe this theory. I believe that bacteria does not grow to every part of the surface area in a tank in the absence of enough 'food'/ammonia. And I tend to believe that you WILL have a cycle if you dramatically increase bioload. THAT SAID, if for example I have a wonderfully running tank - fully stocked, and Theoretically, nitrifiers are present in sufficient number - if I remove the fish and add them back 4 months later - I do not believe there will be ammonia spike. I'm not sure about the idea of a tank constantly 'cycling' - because cycling has a definition - which is the ability for the tank to handle the bioload present. if one bacteria dies and another is 'born' that to me is not cycling - of course thats a process that occurs on a second by second basis. Also of course, an ammonia reading of '0' does not mean no ammonia is being produced - only that its being 'used' as quickly as its being made

 

[Lasse]

I will repost a post from another thread that completely line up the nitrification cycle. It is long but brilliant. Author is @Soren

Here are my thoughts on cycling/cycled/cycle based almost entirely on researching online and reading saltwater reference books with very little personal actual experience or experimentation.
Some terminology distinctions (term is italicized when used in text):
"Bioload" is being used as a very general term to indicate the total contents of living organisms and nutrient introduction/conversion in the tank. This includes animals that convert nutrients to ammonia, feeding rate or nutrients added within food or other additives, consumption rates of nutrients by different organisms, etc.
"Cycle" means the conversion of one ammonia molecule to one nitrite molecule to one nitrate molecule. Each cycle is the conversion of only one molecule, as I am using the terminology here.
"Cycler(s)" means one unit of nitrifying bacteria or other nitrifying organisms, or the biological capacity to complete one cycle.
"Cycled" to me is a nearly worthless term, as it just indicates that at least one cycle has been completed with no indication of cycling capacity. I realize this goes against current terminology, but I consider it too vague a term to be useful.
"Cycling" means that there are enough cyclers for the current tank bioload. This is independent of whether "bioload" is being supplied by fish/invertebrates/corals or by measured additions of chemical nutrients, primarily ammonia for initial cycles.
"Cycling capacity" is the number of cycles completed in some unit of time which is entirely dependent on number of cyclers and is ultimately the measure of capability of the system to handle bioload.

Ideally, a system should operate with a balanced cycling capacity and bioload which is indicated by undetectable nutrients due to enough cyclers to complete cycles very shortly after the introduction of even tiny amounts of ammonia/nitrites/nitrates. Under proper conditions, the cycles happen so fast that the only detectable nutrient is nitrates (unless there are also enough anaerobic bacteria to convert nitrates to nitrogen gas and expel it from the tank). To truly complete this idea of a system under ideal operation parameters, macroalgaes or other algaes could be used so that even nitrate and phosphate are kept quite low, but this goes beyond the discussion about nitrification cycling.

Breaking my response down based on poll possible responses:
"A cycle is only complete when Ammonia is "0", Nitrite is "0" and Nitrates are rising"
I think this is not true, as a cycle is technically complete once any ammonia is converted to nitrite that is then converted to nitrate, so presence of nitrate is an indication of at least one completed cycle. This is not to say that one cycle is an indication that there are enough cyclers to complete the loop often enough to provide enough cycling capacity for a higher bioload.

"A. The best way to cycle is to add an ammonia source alone and 'wait' for the steps above to finish"
Adding an ammonia source and waiting seems to be an effective method by harvesting free nitrifying bacteria cyclers, but it seems to be slower than adding an initial boost of cyclers. This may help teach the patience needed for marine aquariums, so it is not all bad to just wait.

"B. The best way to cycle is to add ammonia, and bacteria and 'wait' for the steps above to finish"
This seems to be the second-best method of starting a tank to reach an initial cycling tank with a certain cycling capacity (first-best is introduction of a significant amount of live rock from the ocean or an established system, especially with good growth of organisms on it). This seems to be experimentally proven to be able to occur pretty quickly. Of course, the cycling capacity needs to be considered when planning how heavy the bioload will be and should be measured through indicators like ammonia decrease in a certain time period.

"C. The best way to cycle a tank is to add bacteria and fish on day 1 (per instructions)"
Though this method works and has been done for years, I am undecided on this method. Though I think there are some benefits to doing this more natural method, I also do not like the direct intentional stress on the first fish (even if they are "hardy"). The chemical method using compounds such as ammonia chloride seems more humane but may leave out important biological details that are just not yet understood fully.

"A. You can take all of the stuff (rock, filter, fish, coral) and put in a new tank"
If by this we consider a total tank transfer, I think this is very doable and has been proven by many in the past. If the cycling capacity is decreased while bioload remains the same (i.e. only using part of the live rock or filter media while transferring all fish/corals), there may still be ammonia detectable for a time until the nitrifying bacteria cyclers increase and bring up the cycling capacity to match current bioload. Due to actual measurement methods, the spike in detectable ammonia and nitrites may be too small to see but is dependent on how much lower the cycling capacity is than current bioload.

"B. If you move rock, fish, coral to a new tank, you will have a cycle"
Well, by my definitions, yes, there will be a new cycle (as I consider new cycles to be occurring continually upon introduction of nutrients in the presence of any nitrifying cyclers). By what I consider the intention of this response, a measurable spike in ammonia and/or nitrites should only occur if bioload from transferred items/occupants is increased proportional to cycling capacity (or cycling capacity is decreased in proportion to bioload). If not, ammonia and/or nitrites should not increase above the cycling capacity to be converted and remain unmeasureable.

"A. If you add significant bioload to a 'cycled tank, you risk a new cycle"
Yes, I think so, since there will be a lag time of greater introduction than conversion until the nitrifying cyclers multiply enough to balance cycle capacity with bioload. This assumes that there are not a lot of dormant nitrifying cyclers that have not died off after previous excess multiplication. I don't know numbers (how much bioload increase, how long until nitrifying cyclers starve, etc.) on this, but I assume that there is potential for some increase in bioload to be manageable due to starving/dormant-but-not-dead-yet nitrifying cyclers. If bioload increases match the multiplication rate of cyclers, the cycling capacity may increase fast enough to balance biolad and keep ammonia/nitrites undetectable.

"B. If you add large bioload, to a cycled tank, nothing will happen - all the bact are there"
As stated in the previous option, this may be true in certain circumstances but is dependent on a lot of factors such as actual total volume, surface/appropriate conditions for nitrifying cyclers, amount of current bioload, actual amount of bioload increase, etc.
If I cycled a 100-gallon aquarium with one small rock and only one 2" damsel until cycling capacity balanced with bioload to ensure fast enough cycles occurring to keep ammonia and nitrite undetectable, then added ten 10" groupers and fed even sparsely but enough to keep them alive, it would seem guaranteed that ammonia will spike tremendously (and thus nitrite and nitrate will also spike as cycles complete). This obvious extreme demonstrates the principle behind my opinion here.

I think of nitrification like package delivery or production. There are 3 types of delivery vehicles (cyclers): A carries/converts ammonia to nitrite, B carries/converts nitrite to nitrate, and C carries/converts nitrate to nitrogen gas. For nitrification, we can ignore C and focus entirely on A and B.
If you start the delivery business small (few cyclers) because demand is small (low bioload, therefore low cycling capacity necessary), the few packages (nutrients) can be delivered with few cyclers. As demand increases (raising bioload), more packages need to be delivered (cycling capacity must increase). Since it takes time to hire more deliverers (cyclers, increased potentially with bottled bacteria or introduction of mature filters/media/live-rock/live-sand/biofilm/old water) and there are two different types of deliverers that need hired (A and B), the higher demand cannot be processed immediately and the warehouse (either A, B, or A and B) starts to fill with packages (nutrients). If demand increases faster (higher bioload than increase of cyclers/cycling capacity) than delivery (cycles), there will always be a detectable surplus of packages at the warehouse (ammonia/nitrite measureable in the tank/system). By hiring more deliverers (increase cyclers), deliveries (cycles) will occur faster to deal with the surplus of packages (nutrients) until a steady stream of deliveries keeps the surplus undetectable at the warehouse. At perfect balance, every package (ammonia/nitrite) is picked up immediately so there is never a surplus at the warehouse (nutrients not detectable) and there are no extra deliverers (cyclers). Eventually, there may be too many deliverers (cyclers) over-hired when there are not enough packages for each one to carry (bioload less than or balanced with cycling capacity). This results in deliverers quitting or being fired (eventual starvation/die-off of excess cyclers) until balance is again restored.
In our delivery system, there are two stages (A and B) that are different. The first deliverer type A carries a package that contains a bomb with potential to go off and will become more destructive the more packages there are in surplus at a given time (ammonia is quite acutely toxic), so it is extremely critical that warehouse A does not have a surplus of packages (ammonia) that could be damaging to nearby occupants (fish/etc.). At warehouse B, the bombs have been diffused but the contents remaining may still be somewhat harmful, maybe mostly just stressful, to carry (nitrite is non-toxic/not as toxic as ammonia/only a stress on marine fish, still an ongoing discussion with different viewpoints whether it needs to be measured), thus the deliveries from warehouse B are not as critical for the well-being of the nearby occupants but would still be a surplus at the warehouse if not delivered, thus indicating an incomplete cycle.
Once the package gets delivered by B (converted to nitrate), it is no longer dangerous but lures a lot of looters (undesirable bacteria/algae/organisms due to high nitrates) that can just cause problems if the packages are not moved to the final customer and removed from the delivery service (converted to nitrogen gas and expelled from the system).


Well, that is a lot of text, but I hope it helps this discussion and that I can continue to learn and better-understand the processes in these complex biological ecosystems we keep in aquariums!

Sincerely Lasse

 

[LRT]

I will repost a post from another thread that completely line up the nitrification cycle. It is long but brilliant. Author is @Soren



Sincerely Lasse

Thank you Lasse. It is brilliant honestly. Thank you @Soren for taking time to write that up im glad its been quoted here as well.
Im extremely happy those kind of discussions have been moved to another thread.
I feel like this one has evolved past the semantics of it all throughout the discussion and all the pages.

Most of the followers are on same page where this threads been headed for many pages now im sure.

Here's where im at.
I'm not sure if we have ever been too far apart with our approaches at all.
I feel testing is going to prove that. I dont care if ive never put alot of significance in testing nitrites. Coincidentally ive pretty much practiced almost every other step you lined out in your 15 step program to the T and most likely landed there with my old school approach of cycling ammonia with light feedings and slower stocking of biolads to get there.

What ive found is stocking specific species of corals may actually aid in this process and stocking the tank responsibility as the tank can handle the bioload with healthy corals from thriving systems with all they bring with them will help expedite the process.
@taricha posted papers showing us that yes there are specific bacteria and algae that our corals love. @Dan_P work shows us how fast surfaces can be covered. Common sense tells us corals from healthy thriving systems already achieve this. And I can tell you from observation a tank full of these things can highly tip the tables in our favors by putting these things in our tanks up front and fast to out compete the bad that tends to naturally occur in fully cycled tanks that just sit and wait for the magic to happen.
I'm hoping to nail down timelines and put data to some of what ive been seeing.
It doesn't take a whole lot to get from point a to b. And it happens alot quicker with alot less than it takes for a fully cycled tank to end up full of algae and issues.

 

[MnFish1]

Thank you Lasse. It is brilliant honestly. Thank you @Soren for taking time to write that up im glad its been quoted here as well.
Im extremely happy those kind of discussions have been moved to another thread.
I feel like this one has evolved past the semantics of it all throughout the discussion and all the pages.

Most of the followers are on same page where this threads been headed for many pages now im sure.

Here's where im at.
I'm not sure if we have ever been too far apart with our approaches at all.
I feel testing is going to prove that. I dont care if ive never put alot of significance in testing nitrites. Coincidentally ive pretty much practiced almost every other step you lined out in your 15 step program to the T and most likely landed there with my old school approach of cycling ammonia with light feedings and slower stocking of biolads to get there.

What ive found is stocking specific species of corals may actually aid in this process and stocking the tank responsibility as the tank can handle the bioload with healthy corals from thriving systems with all they bring with them will help expedite the process.
@taricha posted papers showing us that yes there are specific bacteria and algae that our corals love. @Dan_P work shows us how fast surfaces can be covered. Common sense tells us corals from healthy thriving systems already achieve this. And I can tell you from observation a tank full of these things can highly tip the tables in our favors by putting these things in our tanks up front and fast to out compete the bad that tends to naturally occur in fully cycled tanks that just sit and wait for the magic to happen.
I'm hoping to nail down timelines and put data to some of what ive been seeing.
It doesn't take a whole lot to get from point a to b. And it happens alot quicker with alot less than it takes for a fully cycled tank to end up full of algae and issues.

Again - I think a giant step forward for R2R would be a 'Quarantine' Topic - and a 'Cycling topic'. It has become nearly impossible to go through hundreds of threads to read debates about these topics. Granted - there will still be debates - but they will all be organized lol.

I think you might be over-simplifying (or perhaps over-complicating things). If Coral or fish are in an environment where they thrive, they will. Likewise, if algae, etc as compared to coral and fish are in an environment where they thrive - they will. I do not personally believe you can control these things per se - with bacteria - EXCEPT over long periods of time.

One key thing - I have to keep reminding myself (and you can look at my build thread as a perfect example). The things that do well with aquarist X methods will remain in the tank - the others will die off, IMHO. That (it seems to me) - is the reason why so many people can say 'I do this, and my xxxx is doing great' and another person says 'I do the opposite, and my xxxx is doing great'. People self-select (or the tank does) - the things that do well - keep doing well - the rest go away. And after years you have a tank thats got a lot of huge corals, and etc - but - whats missing is all the stuff that 'died' because the environment was not 'right' for them. Just my addition to the discussion

 

[MnFish1]

Thank you Lasse. It is brilliant honestly. Thank you @Soren for taking time to write that up im glad its been quoted here as well.
Im extremely happy those kind of discussions have been moved to another thread.
I feel like this one has evolved past the semantics of it all throughout the discussion and all the pages.

Most of the followers are on same page where this threads been headed for many pages now im sure.

Here's where im at.
I'm not sure if we have ever been too far apart with our approaches at all.
I feel testing is going to prove that. I dont care if ive never put alot of significance in testing nitrites. Coincidentally ive pretty much practiced almost every other step you lined out in your 15 step program to the T and most likely landed there with my old school approach of cycling ammonia with light feedings and slower stocking of biolads to get there.

What ive found is stocking specific species of corals may actually aid in this process and stocking the tank responsibility as the tank can handle the bioload with healthy corals from thriving systems with all they bring with them will help expedite the process.
@taricha posted papers showing us that yes there are specific bacteria and algae that our corals love. @Dan_P work shows us how fast surfaces can be covered. Common sense tells us corals from healthy thriving systems already achieve this. And I can tell you from observation a tank full of these things can highly tip the tables in our favors by putting these things in our tanks up front and fast to out compete the bad that tends to naturally occur in fully cycled tanks that just sit and wait for the magic to happen.
I'm hoping to nail down timelines and put data to some of what ive been seeing.
It doesn't take a whole lot to get from point a to b. And it happens alot quicker with alot less than it takes for a fully cycled tank to end up full of algae and issues.

@Soren posted this in a thread where I posted a cycling Poll - he said 'he's no expert' - yet puts out this excellent summary. My guess is that he is the reincarnation of Albert Thiel lol

 

[Tamale]

As a new reefer it’s awesome seeing all these big names discuss this topic!

 

[MnFish1]

As a new reefer it’s awesome seeing all these big names discuss this topic!

OK - so earlier - @Soren - said - I dont know much about cycling - and he literally posted a doctoral thesis. Everyone's opinion (IMHO) - is 'expert' for their own situation. And @Soren must be someone else - because - a 'beginner' could not have written that...

 

[LRT]

Again - I think a giant step forward for R2R would be a 'Quarantine' Topic - and a 'Cycling topic'. It has become nearly impossible to go through hundreds of threads to read debates about these topics. Granted - there will still be debates - but they will all be organized lol.

I think you might be over-simplifying (or perhaps over-complicating things). If Coral or fish are in an environment where they thrive, they will. Likewise, if algae, etc as compared to coral and fish are in an environment where they thrive - they will. I do not personally believe you can control these things per se - with bacteria - EXCEPT over long periods of time.

One key thing - I have to keep reminding myself (and you can look at my build thread as a perfect example). The things that do well with aquarist X methods will remain in the tank - the others will die off, IMHO. That (it seems to me) - is the reason why so many people can say 'I do this, and my xxxx is doing great' and another person says 'I do the opposite, and my xxxx is doing great'. People self-select (or the tank does) - the things that do well - keep doing well - the rest go away. And after years you have a tank thats got a lot of huge corals, and etc - but - whats missing is all the stuff that 'died' because the environment was not 'right' for them. Just my addition to the discussion

There's going to be so many on both topics as everyone's ideas are different and thats whats great.
We where only ever going to be as great as the last guys greatest idea otherwise.
I follow quarantine threads although I've never quarantined but respect the folks that do as I've seen some of my best peers lose fish and its heartbreaking.
You nailed it bro I absoloutely am trying to simplify something here that many folks find overwhelming at best.
Not sure how my post #523 could have been any more simple and thats the way I intended.
The pros have passed parameters down to us for us to obtain successful reefs. Basic guidelines for us to achieve to the best of our ability and if and when we put forth the effort to keep our tanks as stable and close as possible to those numbers its almost impossible to fail. Any one of us that have ran a successful reef knows this to be true.
Me and you are almost 99.9% close on everything. And we are probably actually closer to 100% at the end of the day.
Only thing I will add to your statement above is. I have filled a tank full of thriving corals and watched what that can do across the surfaces of my tank.
I'm sticking to my guns when I say. You cover enough surfaces with the right stuff. The stuff our corals love. I have watched it out compete the bad stuff. Like algae. As well as bacteria.
@taricha touched on a super important key factor when he spoke about corals sliming surfaces. Ive watched it happen. And I watched my slimer keep cyano and dinos away from it on a brand new plastic surface. So it could encrust and grow. Ive seen certain species of shrooms do the same exact thing especially with coraline.

 

[LRT]

@MnFish1 check out this picture.
Whats interesting is this shroom didn't do anything until coraline started growing on its disc. Its not growing anywhere else in the vicinity of the shroom besides the disc.
Whats super interesting is its dropping babies on the coraline itself

 

[Lasse]

OK - so earlier - @Soren - said - I dont know much about cycling - and he literally posted a doctoral thesis. Everyone's opinion (IMHO) - is 'expert' for their own situation. And @Soren must be someone else - because - a 'beginner' could not have written that...

You know - Soren could be a forename and hi is from Illinois and it means that it could have been spelled different in the past - with an ö or ø and if so - of cause hi is an expert of heritage

Sincerely Lasse