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

[MnFish1]

and we expect the sensitive shrimp to die, the consequence implied, if the seneye is all wrong.

these variances are found in all seneyes, its the best meter we have. it proves there isn't the consequence in old cycling science conveyed.


the biology in the system, living delicate marine animals that will eat and behave normally day to day, is about to line up with testing.

there comes a point that stated consequence in the cycle shows up as a death, a loss, a clear behavioral change to the most burning parameter animals will face in the reef: nh3

to cast doubt on a fritz cycle absolutely does not line up with Dr. Reefs bottle bac study, its all consequence and zero delivery. what's delivered is tanks that had a specific start date, with happy animals, for pages.

there comes a time where animals behaving normally that don't tolerate parameter noncompliance is given fair evaluation credit.

The animals that are 'happily living' in the tank have been there for an hour.

@Lasse - would you think that if the pH is mis-reading - that one should not track pH - or one should be concerned about the other measurements as well (ammonia, etc)

 

[Lasse]

What I understand - Seneye reads the reflection from a disk that change colour with changes in the NH4 concentration. I think they read the pH the same way - a disk that change colour with the pH. If i not works in the first place - pH reading - why should you be sure it works with the ammonia disk? I do not know - but I know that these two figures in the first post do not correlate at all

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Tamale]

First post in that thread

In post 19 - your figures is displayed

At pH 7 - 0.57 % of total ammonia is NH3. The first measurement should therefore correspond to 24,5 ppm total ammonia. The second measurement should correspond to around 8.4 ppm total ammonia

A pH around 7 in saltwater with an alkalinity of 7-9 dKH is not possible if it is not a huge amount of CO2 in that aquarium.



If you noted that - why trust Seneye in any matter



The growth of a bacteria population during optimal conditions follow the natural e˟ funktion. It means that the demand for food do the same If the bacteria have a doubletime of 13 hours (normal figure for nitrification bacteria) you will have the following growth the first 3 days if you start with 1000 bacteria and therefore the same pattern of consume of ammonia.

​

Lett us say that 1000 bacteria consume 0.001 ppm ammonia (just a fantasy figure in order to show the mechanism) - you will have this demand of available NH4 for the bacteria.

​

And in this theoretical example - we start with 0.1 ppm NH4 - the decline will follow this graph

​

Sincerely Lasse

That makes sense! So essentially you see a steady decline until the expansion of the bacteria overtakes the amount of ”food“ in the system, which then causes a sharper decline in ammonia due to there being more bacteria than food available?

 

[Tamale]

I never feed "Quality pellets or flakes" as I don't believe there is such a thing. "Quality pellets and flakes" are dry and baked so they contain no gut bacteria or oils. I want my fish to have some sort of natural bacteria with every meal and I believe thats why my fish never get sick, only die of old age or jumping out and I never had to quarantine.

They get clams, mysis and live white worms every day. Nothing else except sometimes some LRS food.

Okay! Thanks for the info!

 

[CnidaChris]

At the risk of getting off topic I will also recommend feeding shellfish. I pick them up from the seafood section at the grocery store and pop one open every day to feed. I drop the whole thing in the tank after making sure it can’t close again and my Emperor Angel, CBB, one-spot fox, and Hippo tang go nuts. Between the fish and the occasional snails.hermits and bristle works that shell is completely picked clean within an hour.

 

[LRT]

First post in that thread

In post 19 - your figures is displayed

At pH 7 - 0.57 % of total ammonia is NH3. The first measurement should therefore correspond to 24,5 ppm total ammonia. The second measurement should correspond to around 8.4 ppm total ammonia

A pH around 7 in saltwater with an alkalinity of 7-9 dKH is not possible if it is not a huge amount of CO2 in that aquarium.



If you noted that - why trust Seneye in any matter



The growth of a bacteria population during optimal conditions follow the natural e˟ funktion. It means that the demand for food do the same If the bacteria have a doubletime of 13 hours (normal figure for nitrification bacteria) you will have the following growth the first 3 days if you start with 1000 bacteria and therefore the same pattern of consume of ammonia.

​

Lett us say that 1000 bacteria consume 0.001 ppm ammonia (just a fantasy figure in order to show the mechanism) - you will have this demand of available NH4 for the bacteria.

​

And in this theoretical example - we start with 0.1 ppm NH4 - the decline will follow this graph

​

Sincerely Lasse

Dually noted sir. I think you will find me and Brandon having alot of same discussion about seneye. And particular trust being put in seneye to furthest extent that it sometimes is.
Based on what ive observed personally seen especially lines up with that particular bottle bac being used. I have done the work and cross refferenced back to other kits and control tank that it was in fact that particular bottle bac giving those exact same wonky readings in bottle bac tank. At the same time confirming all other params tracking pretty close. Conclusion that bottle bac will cause false readings for ph with seneye while other params check out close enough for me.
I will also note I dont trust certain color coded kits to the same extent.
I have found the infamous 0 api ammonia readings when seneye showed .001 in same observation tanks we are discussing for whatever thats worth.
I only trust seneye as far as it tracks peak ammonia back to .001. For whatever its worth ive had ammonia on api tell me there's none in there is exactly what im saying.

 

[brandon429]

I don't think many realize just how far that aquarist was just set back in guidance, confidence, ability to predict and weather insults for the tank, independence from retail purchases, resolve over what filters do and by when, I just watched my peers literally harm someone's reefing progress with fear on pH and directly telling them to doubt a seneye cycle we just closed and completed exactly the same in another thread which is now a full reef.

was having to justify my start date calls made, after getting the results we wanted, and that derail affected their training-- let's see how it continues.

I could not possibly be more disappointed in my peers from the chemistry forum than at this second. I know they arent any happier with my posts, but we are disappointed for solely different reasons. we had confidence and resolve coming to that aquarist, we'd met critical carry dates he asked for up front.

That's a rare time I've seen someone completely change course on direction, despite current results posted on seneye, based on negative whispers. Usually that doesnt occur, but by painting doubt within the first hour-he agreed.


that matters in this thread because as we can see, what constitutes an ethical start date is still under disagreement

any form of proof such as dropping ammonia within a predicted timeframe, or happy animals after feeding, or forty dollar bottle bac given ten times the number of required wait days after feeding well, won't be validated if you don't meet arbitrary start dates assigned by analysts who simply do not do work threads using other's tanks and validate those outcome reports. moving thread to thread, they simply challenge results no matter what's posted.

a consequence is either directly stated or implied, and it sets the aquarist back years/months in ability and increases retail purchase dependency and reaction dosing tendencies.

we can fix that though in coming pages of new cycling work, solid bet.

its important that some cycling works never factor nitrite and pH, that way logged results can be compared to those that do.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't think many realize just how far that aquarist was just set back in guidance, confidence, ability to predict and weather insults for the tank, independence from retail purchases, resolve over what filters do and by when, I just watched my peers literally harm someone's reefing progress with fear on pH and directly telling them to doubt a seneye cycle we just closed and completed exactly the same in another thread which is now a full reef.

was having to justify my start date calls made, after getting the results we wanted, and that derail affected their training-- let's see how it continues.

I could not possibly be more disappointed in my peers from the chemistry forum than at this second. I know they arent any happier with my posts, but we are disappointed for solely different reasons. we had confidence and resolve coming to that aquarist, we'd met critical carry dates he asked for up front.

That's a rare time I've seen someone completely change course on direction, despite current results posted on seneye, based on negative whispers. Usually that doesnt occur, but by painting doubt within the first hour-he agreed.


that matters in this thread because as we can see, what constitutes an ethical start date is still under disagreement

any form of proof such as dropping ammonia within a predicted timeframe, or happy animals after feeding, or forty dollar bottle bac given ten times the number of required wait days after feeding well, won't be validated if you don't meet arbitrary start dates assigned by analysts who simply do not do work threads using other's tanks and validate those outcome reports. moving thread to thread, they simply challenge results no matter what's posted.

a consequence is either directly stated or implied, and it sets the aquarist back years/months in ability and increases retail purchase dependency and reaction dosing tendencies.

we can fix that though in coming pages of new cycling work, solid bet.

its important that some cycling works never factor nitrite and pH, that way logged results can be compared to those that do.

I’m more disappointed that you don’t read and comprehend. I said from the start the problem here is not the cycle it’s the pH. The op said he did not prep the seneye. Everyone said he should reverify you made those comments against you. It’s not. Your dramatic response which places you as some kind of victim to me seems odd. The truth is a new aquarist who is asking a question has a valid concern

 

[brandon429]

No, you mislead them we always use seneye in this way, that was no standout, and have successfully in three other threads that was just a derail that really stuck for you this round. you aren't pulling advice from links where pH was an issue in someone's cycle, you picked a challenged variable there just to redirect


for two years now we've been posting that seneye pH doesn't align exactly with other units/probes. what seneye does well is report tiny changes, drops after core # of wait days, that we use to signify readiness-Lasse didn't relay that at all, he relayed a consequence risk again to the new aquarist.

all those threads we ran without the argument and redirection from the risk crowd turned out great, and can be back linked for verification.

for sure the owner was not stressed to see their nh3 in safe ranges and animals doing fine.



you mentioned three times that it had only been an hour, but when eight days go by that doubt you planted will fade

after seeing this cycle work out live time, next month you'll simply repeat the feigned stall/risk advice onward to another poster leaving this example behind. Patterns were already in place to prevent this last reversal, but those weren't your patterns.

here's the recent doubt told to the poster, after I fixed up their cycle and animals are doing fine:
"Would be hard to trust this device."
that's 100% opposite from: seneye is changing the rules of cycling science, showing ready dates far sooner than other kits, consistently, and it matches prior bottle bac studies on ready dates for cycles.

DZ doesnt make work threads, he critiques them, that's how the fear team works. they band together to impact other's work threads, never generate their own studies, and never agree on any determinant date for a cycle being ready.

LRT, what's the final arrangement in the test you are making here?

also curious to know your main testing angle, what's up for discovery and measure/which params

 

[Soren]

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...

Thanks for the compliment, @MnFish1
I am still a beginner by experience but I am also an engineer (by nature and occupation) with deep interest in the marine hobby, so I have spent hours reading about reef tanks and also have been studying cycles more in-depth after my recent need for an immediate-cycle quarantine/isolation tank (Reference 1, 2). Hopefully in the next month or so I will gain more first-hand experience with cycling as I set up my 125-125 system.

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

Ha, the name is not actual heritage, though I do have a lot of interest in such heritage. My family ancestry is actually Swiss/German (Braegger/Martin) from several generations back. I just liked the name as one similar to mine and a combination of letters with some significance, so I keep it as a username on different forums. My real name is usually undisclosed, but has come up at least once on R2R...

Now, enough of my side-track, back to the topic at hand!

 

[brandon429]

Soren you had an excellent summary I thought as Lasse had mentioned.

Have you come across failed cycle attempt posts in combing the web forums for data, curious if you've seen any hard obvious cycle fails, or do all these ways pretty much work evenly/innate ability to handle ammonia in wet/high surface area systems is pretty much a given? (not sure how else to summarize it, I comb the web for cycling fails and its all pre-TAN conversion panic posts but animals always act fine, look fine, in clear water)

as we align and define certain cycling measures, its amazing there really isn't one of the group that has more fails it seems, it seems any arrangement will carry fish.

I never ascribe to the notion that delicate marine organisms are being burnt by nh3 and acting normally, it'd be 100% painful and simulate kidney loss which in every other organism in vet science shows clear lethargy, distress, quick death. an ongoing battle among cycling posts is specifically the claim that animals are being harmed while acting normally, feeding normally...its hard to see examples of that claimed continuum where few or no death cycles can be found. it seems just about every arrangement we create in swirling water, works.

 

[Soren]

Soren you had an excellent summary I thought as Lasse had mentioned.

Have you come across failed cycle attempt posts in combing the web forums for data, curious if you've seen any hard obvious cycle fails, or do all these ways pretty much work evenly/innate ability to handle ammonia in wet/high surface area systems is pretty much a given? (not sure how else to summarize it, I comb the web for cycling fails and its all pre-TAN conversion panic posts but animals always act fine, look fine, in clear water)

as we align and define certain cycling measures, its amazing there really isn't one of the group that has more fails it seems, it seems any arrangement will carry fish.

I never ascribe to the notion that delicate marine organisms are being burnt by nh3 and acting normally, it'd be 100% painful and simulate kidney loss which in every other organism in vet science shows clear lethargy, distress, quick death. an ongoing battle among cycling posts is specifically the claim that animals are being harmed while acting normally, feeding normally...its hard to see examples of that claimed continuum where few or no death cycles can be found. it seems just about every arrangement we create in swirling water, works.

I can't really answer to this due to my relative lack of experience.
What it seems like to me from my research and some experience, any system will eventually be cycling all the way through ammonia/nitrite/nitrate conversion (and, possibly, nitrate to nitrogen gas that is expelled) as long as enough time passes. This seems generally irrelevant to me for cycling discussion, because much more specific information is needed for a specific case to be determined cycling or functionally-safe for occupants.

What I consider most important is looking at specific timeframes for specific life-form introductions for a specific setup size. Also important is knowing which measures are most important to indicate the appropriate time-frame (example: how much ammonia should be added for a fishless cycle to accurately represent bioload and how fast does the ammonia need to be converted to indicate significant nitrifying populations, and what methods of measuring ammonia are reliable).

One thing I also consider to be very important is an appropriate mindset that both does not encourage laziness or lack of personal research while also keeping in mind that most posts on the forum are from beginners with very little understanding of the actual science behind all of this. Though some of us are obviously deeply interested in the science as well, I feel that we need ways to simplify the recommendations to actually provide help to someone who does not understand the science and needs help with a specific system. I think this already happens fairly well, but there is also a lot of opportunity for confusion to people just starting out with so much information available, especially where there are disagreements instead of just options of different methods that work.

As much as I would like all to have the deep passion to understand our marine systems to the deepest level, I believe that most people mostly just want a tank with pretty fish and corals.

 

[brandon429]

well said again. This whole battle / honing/ evolution of practice centers around simply discerning an ethical start date to carry intended bioload, a time-based matter 100%.

gotta admit retailers are surely moving up the wait scale to zero stock can move quickly out of tanks and into homes on that gravy train. we are all studying impacts and measures years into the changing ways people stock reef tanks nowadays: quickly. Jay's forum is so busy now he needs a helper or three, and its fascinating to see that many entrants there for disease help indeed waited to perfect ammonia and nitrite compliance. the other half were speed cyclers: all the loss data is found in disease and two hour acclimation posts, not ammonia burning within a display/this is the standout pattern I see.


I'm amazed that cyclers are given risk worries around data we can't source, and the data we can source for direct bucketloads of loss is omitted as we work to test our best methods on new tank cycles asking for help.



readers:
the OP is updating perfect predicted outcomes, and they’re still training them to doubt the cycle for pages coming.

it won’t stop until the OP simply sees results so vastly different than fear advice that they’re simply ignored.

They will never agree on a start date which was predicted last week. The op can see in person nothing is wrong, nothing is bad, nothing is at risk.
DZ now has their calcium test involved in cycle proofing.

Seneye Cycling False or correct results?

Should be fine on overfeeding considering the amount left over It is not the left over that´s the problem with N when feeding. Around 70-80 % of the N content in the feed will be excreted through the gills as NH3/NH4 0.5 - 2 hours after feeding. its a direct response to the feed Sincerely Lasse

www.reef2reef.com

 

[MnFish1]

No, you mislead them we always use seneye in this way, that was no standout, and have successfully in three other threads that was just a derail that really stuck for you this round. you aren't pulling advice from links where pH was an issue in someone's cycle, you picked a challenged variable there just to redirect


for two years now we've been posting that seneye pH doesn't align exactly with other units/probes. what seneye does well is report tiny changes, drops after core # of wait days, that we use to signify readiness-Lasse didn't relay that at all, he relayed a consequence risk again to the new aquarist.

all those threads we ran without the argument and redirection from the risk crowd turned out great, and can be back linked for verification.

for sure the owner was not stressed to see their nh3 in safe ranges and animals doing fine.



you mentioned three times that it had only been an hour, but when eight days go by that doubt you planted will fade

after seeing this cycle work out live time, next month you'll simply repeat the feigned stall/risk advice onward to another poster leaving this example behind. Patterns were already in place to prevent this last reversal, but those weren't your patterns.

here's the recent doubt told to the poster, after I fixed up their cycle and animals are doing fine:
"Would be hard to trust this device."
that's 100% opposite from: seneye is changing the rules of cycling science, showing ready dates far sooner than other kits, consistently, and it matches prior bottle bac studies on ready dates for cycles.

DZ doesnt make work threads, he critiques them, that's how the fear team works. they band together to impact other's work threads, never generate their own studies, and never agree on any determinant date for a cycle being ready.

LRT, what's the final arrangement in the test you are making here?

also curious to know your main testing angle, what's up for discovery and measure/which params

1. I don't know who the 'fear team' is. I told the OP - I agreed with you 100 percent that his cycle/ammonia was 'ok'.
2. The OP himself related that HE made a mistake Setting up his Seneye - and thus that could be the reason for the changes - and that he should verify them.
3. Just because one poster (in this case you) do something a certain way - and collect posts/threads that agree with you - is IMHO - is not the total story. There are the 'results' - the 'work threads' great - but there also is the 'rationale' behind the results - and the validity of the results thats also important. Again - I could say - here is a 'work thread' of people who have not Quarantined their fish - and there would be plenty. You would not agree with that evidence, right?
4. I mentioned it had been an hour only because YOU said that healthy fish swimming proved there was no issue - thats patently ridiculous. You're right - in 8 days it would be proof,.

 

[Lasse]

Ha, the name is not actual heritage, though I do have a lot of interest in such heritage. My family ancestry is actually Swiss/German (Braegger/Martin) from several generations back. I just liked the name as one similar to mine and a combination of letters with some significance, so I keep it as a username on different forums. My real name is usually undisclosed, but has come up at least once on R2R...

Now, enough of my side-track, back to the topic at hand!

Sören and Søren is the swedish and norwegian spelling of a forename in our countries. I´m Swede and Mn1fish is at least of Norwegian heritage. I was joking cause your post was so good

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Soren]

Sören and Søren is the swedish and norwegian spelling of a forename in our countries. I´m Swede and Mn1fish is at least of Norwegian heritage. I was joking cause your post was so good

Sincerely Lasse

Yep, I am aware of the Swedish/Norwegian origin of the name and I understood your joke, especially because I was aware of your heritage (though not aware of @MnFish1 's heritage)!

 

[DrZoidburg]

Yea I said that because its true.

"Would be hard to trust this device."

 

[MnFish1]

Yea I said that because its true.

So far at least 2 or more have said the same thing. If a device is not set up properly (or a test is done improperly) - who in their right mind would say to trust it without verifying the results.

 

[DrZoidburg]

So far at least 2 or more have said the same thing. If a device is not set up properly (or a test is done improperly) - who in their right mind would say to trust it without verifying the results.

Yea its not like I said ALL seneys lol. More typical cycle umps, fear team is new...Stop stereotyping us. Dude argues with anyone who disagrees with their end goal. How is "teaming up" any different than what he is doing? Then he goes and edits his posts live time. Brandon I answer questions like yours a couple months ago where you clogged your drain LOL. Yes low ph dissolves calcium carbonate like the sand in your drain..

 

[MnFish1]

What is interesting - if people want 'work threads' - if you google pH problems with Seneye - there are many posts - and many people that just disregard the reading entirely. There can be also a lot of variability (apparently) with ammonia - depending on placement, etc.