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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rick's Reviews

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
2,738
Reaction score
1,750
Location
Nottingham
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
For scientifical purposes of course;)
I know that brs is looking at new ideas for setting up tanks.
They have fully cycled and stocked a successful tank in 48hrs.
I've done a tank in 24hrs.
We know that we can fully transfer tanks over to new systems and not even experience cycles as long as we don't exceed bioload from existing tanks.
We know that we can pretty much do the same thing with dry rock/bottle bac tank start ups if cycle protocol is followed and tank is stocked correctly.
We know that color coded test kits can read astronomically high when seneye shows ammonia levels in hundredths and sometimes thousandths on same new "cycling" tanks.
If by definition a cycle is considered over when ammonia and nitrite levels top out and begin to decline. Why do we continue to tell reefers they are still cycling when tanks are fully capable of handling bioload?

Why aren't we really exploring the benefits of these controlled approaches to cycling tanks? There are too many successful reefs being documented daily using new approaches and getting same job done more efficiently.
Why are we still regurgitating old school rules when they are out of date and no longer apply to new school data and methods?
Maybe look into recycling old tanks into new, guess no market for this! Everyone spends thousands but return is 90percent less, turn old tanks into sumps, imo
 

CnidaChris

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
81
Location
Louisiana
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think that one of the issues with coming up with any sort of standard time for “cycling” is that there is no standard tank. Are you going to wait the same amount of time to add 2 fish into a 32 gallon tank as you would a 300 gallon? What if the fish I add to the 300 gallon is already 10 inches and a messy eater?

I also think the term “cycled” should go away, since, I and others here seem to be in agreement that our tank never stops cycling ammonia to nitrate. The main concern when building out a new tank should be balancing the increase in bio-load as we stock the tank against the current limitations of the beneficial bacteria that will cycle the main waste product, ammonia. The bacteria that handles this process may be introduced through bottled products, live sand or rock ( my preferred method), or from stocking the tank with fish or corals. Depending on how the bacteria is introduced it will need time to multiply, but also will be limited by food sources, space, competition from other bacteria etc.

Because there is no agreed standard and because every tank is seeded differently and stocked differently the best we can do are approximations and best practices. We can look across the forums here and elsewhere and see that there are some standard recommendations such as starting slow, establish a plan and stock appropriately, frequent testing and water changes in the beginning etc. It is important to note that these are “best practices” and not rules, and that deviation from them may be normal or even necessary in some cases, but we should strive as a community to honestly audit these practices and improve upon them as our knowledge and understanding grows.

tldr: You are not going to have a set rule on when a tank is “cycled” because no two tanks will have the same bio load unless in a controlled experiment ( which will not apply to all tanks outside of the experiment due to aforementioned variety).
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I think that one of the issues with coming up with any sort of standard time for “cycling” is that there is no standard tank. Are you going to wait the same amount of time to add 2 fish into a 32 gallon tank as you would a 300 gallon? What if the fish I add to the 300 gallon is already 10 inches and a messy eater?

I also think the term “cycled” should go away, since, I and others here seem to be in agreement that our tank never stops cycling ammonia to nitrate. The main concern when building out a new tank should be balancing the increase in bio-load as we stock the tank against the current limitations of the beneficial bacteria that will cycle the main waste product, ammonia. The bacteria that handles this process may be introduced through bottled products, live sand or rock ( my preferred method), or from stocking the tank with fish or corals. Depending on how the bacteria is introduced it will need time to multiply, but also will be limited by food sources, space, competition from other bacteria etc.

Because there is no agreed standard and because every tank is seeded differently and stocked differently the best we can do are approximations and best practices. We can look across the forums here and elsewhere and see that there are some standard recommendations such as starting slow, establish a plan and stock appropriately, frequent testing and water changes in the beginning etc. It is important to note that these are “best practices” and not rules, and that deviation from them may be normal or even necessary in some cases, but we should strive as a community to honestly audit these practices and improve upon them as our knowledge and understanding grows.

tldr: You are not going to have a set rule on when a tank is “cycled” because no two tanks will have the same bio load unless in a controlled experiment ( which will not apply to all tanks outside of the experiment due to aforementioned variety).

I think everyone here agrees that ammonia is constantly being converted to nitrite and Nitrate in the tank. So its kind of a 'cycle' - BUT - cycled and cycling etc have definitions. The definition is 'when can fish, etc' be safely introduced into a new tank

Second there is an interesting debate by several posters here - that suggest that ammonia oxidizing bacteria (no matter how much ammonia is in the tank) - will cover every surface possible. Thus - a tank is always ready for any bioload after a certain time. I do not agree with that idea.

Third - there is also a group of people who feel that a cycle - no matter what is complete after xxx days - (the same group that believes in point #2). I also disagree with this.

What I think (Only my opinion) - Using liquid ammonia at 2 ppm - is a way to start a tank. BUT as I think as @Lasse would suggest - it would be rare for fish to produce 2 PPM ammonia per day. So IMHO - its very safe to add bacteria and fish and even corals - early - and let them build up the bacteria 'using the amount of ammonia they produce'. In theory - as you said - there is always an 'ammonia cycle' happening. And as fish grow, etc - are fed more, etc - they will make more ammonia - and more ammonia will need to be processed.

Sorry this was long - I actually agree with you - and I think I said - a couple days ago - Im going to avoid the term 'cycled' - but rather 'starting up a tank'
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
quote: I think that one of the issues with coming up with any sort of standard time for “cycling” is that there is no standard tank. Are you going to wait the same amount of time to add 2 fish into a 32 gallon tank as you would a 300 gallon? What if the fish I add to the 300 gallon is already 10 inches and a messy eater?




We can plan for exactly that above. there is no variable that we cant plan for and predict rather accurately what a seneye will show afterwards on nh3 and by what date that will occur. the final readings and the compliance date can be stated for the system, before it's even built, this is how they run reef convention start dates

The answer is yes you would wait the same time frame, because thats what is on file already tested for ten years.

the larger system specifically doesn't take longer to cycle because its larger.

there is no training written in reef logs or articles about the physics of surface area as biofilters in these tanks because what can be sold extra and repeatedly is the bacterial component. from a bottle


the common stack of rock surface area in the middle of the wastewater, in heated high flow, specifically means ranges in bioloading starts all register the same control range on a seneye, extra surface area is the buffer, its not as bioload sensitive as peers teach each other in forums.

When we assign a start date to any reef tank before its built, we don't care what degree of bioloading you use so long as its common to reefing, you aren't trying to break a new record or anything, and so long as you're using some degree of rock right in the middle of the display. that's the two factors needed. use it for 20 clownfish all at once/have thread link for that/ or use it for no fish and a fallow prep, then add in 15 fish (if appropriate for volume) and it still won't mini cycle, fallowing cannot starve a cycle. that goes hand in hand with bioload maximum concerns, its all about limiting what bacteria can do when in fact they have so much real estate right in the middle of flow even if some are lost, the collective group instantly handles changes like a giant nh3 shock absorber.



we make no distinction for gallonage in our cycling threads that study specific start date assignments. Every tank gets the same prescribed number of wait up days depending on the boosters used and also considering total skip cycle setups that have zero wait time whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
29,794
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Second there is an interesting debate by several posters here - that suggest that ammonia oxidizing bacteria (no matter how much ammonia is in the tank) - will cover every surface possible. Thus - a tank is always ready for any bioload after a certain time. I do not agree with that idea

Third - there is also a group of people who feel that a cycle - no matter what is complete after xxx days - (the same group that believes in point #2). I also disagree with this.
The word "cycle" has for age been a abbreviation of nitrification cycle -> NH3/NH4 ->NO2 -> NO3. When this had started - IMO at least the NOB (second step) bacteria can go dormant for a period. When it is completed with a certain load of NH3/NH4 - i does not matter if the load totally disappear for a day or two or longer - the process will just "wake" up if the load of NH3/NH4 rise to the first level again IME. When once completed - it is a robust process. How much anyone scream "working threads" a nitrification cycle is not completed before the transformation from NH3/NH4 goes seamless to NO3. That´s the core definition of a nitrification cycle. Let us use the normal and accepted nomenclature - if we do not do that - it is meaningless to discuss the matter.

The AOB and AOA and NOB use the difference in energy level between NH3/NH4 and NO2 (AOB and AOA) and between NO2 and NO3 for NOB. (AOB = ammonia oxidizing Bacteria; AOA = ammonia oxidizing archaea; NOB
= Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria). These bacteria is autotrophic like plants and algae but use the difference in stored chemical energy in the different compounds instead for light. Therefore - both of these statement you mention is false. These organisms can´t manage themself without this energy as plants that not get light can´t in the long run. There could be situations - like the nordic winter there light energy does not is available - plants just go dormant. Its the same here. But if a plants should go dormant - it must be there - it can´t just be there on the third day (even if it is still people that think so). Its the same with nitrification bacteria - they need to be produced first (growth and that demand the chemical energy) - if the chemical energy stop flooding they can get dormant and wait for better times.

This is the reason why some people thinks that they always are there - but if they should - they need the chemical energy for growth and forming biomass first.

Its little like - oh - I cant see longer than to the horizont - the world must end there - we have a flat world. A working thread that´s not understand the underlying mechanism will end up in a flat world.

Sincerely Lasse
 
Last edited:

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Lasse one thing about that chemistry above

how does one use it to know what date a reef tank will be ready to carry bioload, how can that info be arranged to arrive at a simple start date allowed?

I dont mean an open ended wait until X Y compliance is met, a hindsight measure

how can that biochemistry above be used to make predictive bioload carry dates? such as: Im setting up an all dry system

my fish shipment of all qt fish is coming in november 9th, how can I make that start date ethically using dry rocks?

when I read that excellent biochemistry above, I want to be able to extract a Nov 9th ready date from it, a pinpointed accountable date. can we?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LRT

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
we make no distinction for gallonage in our cycling threads that study specific start date assignments. Every tank gets the same prescribed number of wait up days depending on the boosters used and also considering total skip cycle setups that have zero wait time whatsoever.
Except in this paragraph, you make several distinctions:

1. The boosters added (not a common term - I assume you mean ammonia, or fish food, or the proverbial 'dead shrimp' - which would I assume affect 'the wait time'
2. Using Live Rock means no wait time.
3. I assume using bottle bacteria (was that a booster?) - affects wait time.

I.e. though you say you make no distinctions - you make all kinds of them.

My point - it seems to me there is a different 'wait time' for each method. But - the idea that the number of gallons doesn't matter in conjunction with bioload cannot be defended by any 'work thread'.

The problem with this whole discussion of 'work threads' is exactly what the other poster said - there is no standard tank. BUT there is ONE standard - and thats that people (especially people HERE on R2R) - tend to be extremely cautious. SO - this introduces a huge bias because the 'work threads' are not for the most part 'pushing the envelope'. They aren't adding 5 large tangs to a 50 gallon tank, etc. If more people were 'pushing theh envelope', i.e. just adding a full bioload of fish into a tank after x days - there would be ammonia problems - depending on the method used to start up the tank.
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think that one of the issues with coming up with any sort of standard time for “cycling” is that there is no standard tank. Are you going to wait the same amount of time to add 2 fish into a 32 gallon tank as you would a 300 gallon? What if the fish I add to the 300 gallon is already 10 inches and a messy eater?

I also think the term “cycled” should go away, since, I and others here seem to be in agreement that our tank never stops cycling ammonia to nitrate. The main concern when building out a new tank should be balancing the increase in bio-load as we stock the tank against the current limitations of the beneficial bacteria that will cycle the main waste product, ammonia. The bacteria that handles this process may be introduced through bottled products, live sand or rock ( my preferred method), or from stocking the tank with fish or corals. Depending on how the bacteria is introduced it will need time to multiply, but also will be limited by food sources, space, competition from other bacteria etc.

Because there is no agreed standard and because every tank is seeded differently and stocked differently the best we can do are approximations and best practices. We can look across the forums here and elsewhere and see that there are some standard recommendations such as starting slow, establish a plan and stock appropriately, frequent testing and water changes in the beginning etc. It is important to note that these are “best practices” and not rules, and that deviation from them may be normal or even necessary in some cases, but we should strive as a community to honestly audit these practices and improve upon them as our knowledge and understanding grows.

tldr: You are not going to have a set rule on when a tank is “cycled” because no two tanks will have the same bio load unless in a controlled experiment ( which will not apply to all tanks outside of the experiment due to aforementioned variety).
Great points that had me thinking about things when this thread was started.
I feel "Cycle" is never going to go away. It really shouldn't. Its real simple proven science the pros, real scientists, chemists and biologists formulated to tell us when our tanks are ready for livestock. I feel like lots of folks are confused about what terminology should be used to describe certain processes that get us from point A to C.
Agree a tank "cycle" of life never stops and is always achieving C.
Agreed all tanks are not created equal but they do all start at point A.
We really have discussed super helpful more efficient methods folks can use to get to point B.
We certainly could fine tune bioload ratios used to stock tanks.
Anyone thats ever used the failsafe light feed approach @Lasse defines in his 15 step method knows the standardized "magical" 2ppm ammonia dose/whole dead shrimp approach knows its not only unnecessary but totally unefficient as most folks only put a cpl fish in tank after initial cycle for livestock ready.
We could totally tighten up a bunch of stuff that would be helpful for especially new reefers for sure.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
how can that biochemistry above be used to make predictive bioload carry dates? such as: Im setting up an all dry system

my fish shipment of all qt fish is coming in november 9th, how can I make that start date ethically using dry rocks?

Maybe I'm blind - or stupid (or both) - but I believe @Lasse has explained exactly how to do that multiple times.

But - I can think of a couple methods. 1. Add dry rock, add bottled bacteria on November 8 (or 7) lol - and add the fish on the 9th. If you want, measure ammonia - if its climbing - add prime or do a water change (or more bacteria) 2. Set up the tank today - with Dry rock, bacteria and maybe a bit of fish food - and add the fish on the 9th. If you want to check ammonia to make sure its not skyrocketing - do that. Feed sparingly during the initial addition of the fish.

Now - can you answer the same question? Can you guarantee (starting with a dry rock) and using any method (except adding total live rock from another tank of the same size) - which date you can ethically add 1) 2 clownfish or 2) 7 4 inch tangs to a 50 gallon tank. IMHO - no matter which method you use - you cannot compare the 2 additions - which makes IMHO the point and question moot. For example - you could take 2 clowns add them to a bare 90 gallon glass tank and a HOB filter - and ethically - there would never be an ammonia spike. With the tangs it would be a different story?
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
The word "cycle" has for age been a abbreviation of nitrification cycle -> NH3/NH4 ->NO2 -> NO3. When this had started - IMO at least the NOB (second step) bacteria can go dormant for a period. When it is completed with a certain load of NH3/NH4 - i does not matter if the load totally disappear for a day or two or longer - the process will just "wake" up if the load of NH3/NH4 rise to the first level again IME. When once completed - it is a robust process. How much anyone scream "working threads" a nitrification cycle is not completed before the transformation from NH3/NH4 goes seamless to NO3. That´s the core definition of a nitrification cycle. Let us use the normal and accepted nomenclature - if we do not do that - it is meaningless to discuss the matter.

The AOB and AOA and NOB use the difference in energy level between NH3/NH4 and NO2 (AOB and AOA) and between NO2 and NO3 for NOB. (AOB = ammonia oxidizing Bacteria; AOA = ammonia oxidizing archaea; NOB
= Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria). These bacteria is autotrophic like plants and algae but use the difference in stored chemical energy in the different compounds instead for light. Therefore - both of these statement you mention is false. These organisms can´t manage themself without this energy as plants that not get light can´t in the long run. There could be situations - like the nordic winter there light energy does not is available - plants just go dormant. Its the same here. But if a plants should go dormant - it must be there - it can´t just be there on the third day (even if it is still people that think so). Its the same with nitrification bacteria - they need to be produced first (growth and that demand the chemical energy) - if the chemical energy stop flooding they can get dormant and wait for better times.

This is the reason why some people thinks that they always are there - but if they should - they need the chemical energy for growth and forming biomass first.

Its little like - oh - I cant see longer than to the horizont - the world must end there - we have a flat world. A working thread that´s not understand the underlying mechanism will end up in a flat world.

Sincerely Lasse
I agree - sorry - I didn't mean changing the definition of a 'cycle' - because I agree 100% that your definition is the correct one. Mine was more a philosophical comment since NOW there is so much debate about how to get the biochemistry above to function in our tanks.

IMHO - as long as there are people claiming that no matter what the bioload or gallonage of the tank etc the 'biochemistry' will be completed in a certain defined period of time independent of the method used to 'start the biochemistry', this entire discussion is almost a moot point.

If this is true: "Ammonia oxidation is the first and usually rate-limiting step in the nitrification process and fulfills a critical link in the global nitrogen cycle." How can anyone say bioload and gallonage doesn't matter. Now - of course a tank is not a completely closed system - so there can be external sources of ammonia. What I can not see happening - is that everyone's house has the same amount of 'external ammonia' being added to a tank - such that a guaranteed 'cycle date' can be made (unless the guaranteed date is far into the future)
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Lasse one thing about that chemistry above

how does one use it to know what date a reef tank will be ready to carry bioload, how can that info be arranged to arrive at a simple start date allowed?

I dont mean an open ended wait until X Y compliance is met, a hindsight measure

how can that biochemistry above be used to make predictive bioload carry dates? such as: Im setting up an all dry system

my fish shipment of all qt fish is coming in november 9th, how can I make that start date ethically using dry rocks?

when I read that excellent biochemistry above, I want to be able to extract a Nov 9th ready date from it, a pinpointed accountable date. can we?
I think we use@Lasse failsafe feed in 15 step approach.
We use measurements of weight and put ratios to bioloads like as @taricha described.
We fine tune and look at more precise measurements of nitrites and compare those to standard kits being used like we did with seneye and ammonia.
I think this is all super doable.
 
Last edited:

CnidaChris

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
81
Location
Louisiana
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The answer is yes you would wait the same time frame, because thats what is on file already tested for ten years.

the larger system specifically doesn't take longer to cycle because its larger
Not only would the wait time on the larger system not be longer, I would argue it would be shorter if anything due to the simple fact that there is more water for the ammonia to diffuse through thus lowering the overall ppm and keeping it well within safe limits. There is a reason that nano and pico tanks are often thought of as much harder to maintain. A very little change can have a much more rapid effect.
 
Last edited:

CnidaChris

Community Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
81
Location
Louisiana
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
When we assign a start date to any reef tank before its built, we don't care what degree of bioloading you use so long as its common to reefing, you aren't trying to break a new record or anything, and so long as you're using some degree of rock right in the middle of the display. that's the two factors needed. use it for 20 clownfish all at once/have thread link for that/ or use it for no fish and a fallow prep, then add in 15 fish (if appropriate for volume) and it still won't mini cycle, fallowing cannot starve a cycle.

I don’t think I can disagree with this more.

Firstly, the phrase what is “common to reefing” is not helpful in the least to someone starting out in the hobby. There are definitely people that are able to push the envelope with stocking by running oversized skimmers, packed refugiums or other methods of export. There are others who struggle to keep 2 fish alive.

Secondly, if you think dropping 20 fish into the tank at one time will not cause any changes to a fallow tank why not drop 40? Hell why not pour a bottle of ammonia into the tank since apparently the magical bacteria can handle any load.

It is not rational or reasonable to say that there are no limits or to try to use inductive reasoning to apply a hard rule ( wait so many days/weeks/months) to all systems when the systems are inherently different. Instead we should educate on responsible methodology that can be applied in different situations.
 

Lasse

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
10,830
Reaction score
29,794
Location
Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If you start from scratch - complete new everything. No organic matter - nothing - total clean tank. The only ammonia source is the amount that will be excreted by the fish gills - there is no organic matters in the system that will be breakdown to ammonia of heterotrophic bacteria. There is a small ammonia excretion from the fish metabolism but it so small that we do not need to take that in calculation now (if you do not want to put in 100 fishes the same time). Where will the N bioload come from? It comes from the food - as i have say fifty eleven times now - between 1/2 an hour to 2-3 hours after feeding - around 60 - 70 % of the foods N content will be excreted as NH4 from the gills of the fish. (to be correct 80 % of the N is surplus - will not be fish biomass and 80 % of tis surplus will be excreted out from the gills (around) 0.8*0.8 = 0.64 = 64%) dry food content around 40 % protein (read on the package). Protein in general content 16 % N -> 1 g of dry food content 1*0,4*0.16 = 0.064 g N. Of this 64 % will be excreted - means that 0.064*0.64 = 0,038 g N will come out as NH4-N in the water -> 18/14*0.038 = 0.049 g or 49 mg NH4( N= 14; H= 1; NH4=18).

This means that around (at least in the right county) of every 1 g dry food with 40% protein you fish will excrete around 0.05 g (50 mg) NH4. In 10 liters - it will be 5 mg/l (ppm), in 100 L it will be 0.5 mg/L (ppm) and in 1000 L it will be 0.05 mg/L (ppm) total ammonia in worst case. If you use frozen natural food like adult brine shrimps - dive the figure with 5.
It means that 1 g frozen adult brine shrimp will contribute with 0,01 g (10 mg) - in 10 L -> 1 mg/L (ppm) - in 100 l -> 0,1 mg/L (ppm) NH4
A cube brine shrimp weight around 5 g - it means that it will give around 0.05g (50 mg) NH4. In 100 liters - it will be 0.5 mg/L (ppm)

This is a calculation that shows the ballpark. If you get fish the second day - feed very sparsely the first three weeks (after my 15 steps) and gradually rise it - you fine if you use addition of nitrification bacteria in one or another way - but you can see how little you should feed.

If you want to start totally fishless - add 0.01 mg/L NH4 (ammonia) every day (and rise it slowly till you come up to your calculated feeding the first time) for some weeks together with addition of nitrification bacteria of some type (bottled, soilfiltrate, used gravel, used filter or so.) If you also use a internal foam filter in the start - you will speed up the process.

If you want to feed with 1 cube frozen artemis when your fish arrive - you should prepare the aquarium to manage around 0.5 mg/L NH4 per day if your tank is 100L

This low ammonia concentrations is difficult to measure with our equipments - therefore in order to know if the nitrification cycle works - use nitrite measurements. It should show below 0.1 ppm NO2 - IMO. After the introduction rise your feeding slowly

Sincerely Lasse
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I really do see what everyone point is here. I think the biggest gap amongst everyone is the actual dare I say "conventional" common knowledge being used?
Its entirely out of date and needs to be refined.
We have better more efficient ways of testing certain params.
We know we can refine feeds to fit bioloads and literally could land at actual numbers that could be used to scale up and give a solid base reefers could use to fit individual reefs.
We absoloutely could formulate a much better plan that we could put much better timelines to using all of the above.
If not reefers really will be stuck out here watching reef TV on old school screens with turn dials and bunny ears as opposed to seeing them on HDTV.
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If you start from scratch - complete new everything. No organic matter - nothing - total clean tank. The only ammonia source is the amount that will be excreted by the fish gills - there is no organic matters in the system that will be breakdown to ammonia of heterotrophic bacteria. There is a small ammonia excretion from the fish metabolism but it so small that we do not need to take that in calculation now (if you do not want to put in 100 fishes the same time). Where will the N bioload come from? It comes from the food - as i have say fifty eleven times now - between 1/2 an hour to 2-3 hours after feeding - around 60 - 70 % of the foods N content will be excreted as NH4 from the gills of the fish. (to be correct 80 % of the N is surplus - will not be fish biomass and 80 % of tis surplus will be excreted out from the gills (around) 0.8*0.8 = 0.64 = 64%) dry food content around 40 % protein (read on the package). Protein in general content 16 % N -> 1 g of dry food content 1*0,4*0.16 = 0.064 g N. Of this 64 % will be excreted - means that 0.064*0.64 = 0,038 g N will come out as NH4-N in the water -> 18/14*0.038 = 0.049 g or 49 mg NH4( N= 14; H= 1; NH4=18).

This means that around (at least in the right county) of every 1 g dry food with 40% protein you fish will excrete around 0.05 g (50 mg) NH4. In 10 liters - it will be 5 mg/l (ppm), in 100 L it will be 0.5 mg/L (ppm) and in 1000 L it will be 0.05 mg/L (ppm) total ammonia in worst case. If you use frozen natural food like adult brine shrimps - dive the figure with 5.
It means that 1 g frozen adult brine shrimp will contribute with 0,01 g (10 mg) - in 10 L -> 1 mg/L (ppm) - in 100 l -> 0,1 mg/L (ppm) NH4
A cube brine shrimp weight around 5 g - it means that it will give around 0.05g (50 mg) NH4. In 100 liters - it will be 0.5 mg/L (ppm)

This is a calculation that shows the ballpark. If you get fish the second day - feed very sparsely the first three weeks (after my 15 steps) and gradually rise it - you fine if you use addition of nitrification bacteria in one or another way - but you can see how little you should feed.

If you want to start totally fishless - add 0.01 mg/L NH4 (ammonia) every day (and rise it slowly till you come up to your calculated feeding the first time) for some weeks together with addition of nitrification bacteria of some type (bottled, soilfiltrate, used gravel, used filter or so.) If you also use a internal foam filter in the start - you will speed up the process.

If you want to feed with 1 cube frozen artemis when your fish arrive - you should prepare the aquarium to manage around 0.5 mg/L NH4 per day if your tank is 100L

This low ammonia concentrations is difficult to measure with our equipments - therefore in order to know if the nitrification cycle works - use nitrite measurements. It should show below 0.1 ppm NO3 - IMO. After the introduction rise your feeding slowly

Sincerely Lasse
Pure gold thank you @Lasse.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0

I'm not saying that happens often. most often is real dry rock starts even with painted rocks

but that was the real missed skip cycle, MN specifically said that doesnt occur some pages back, that such a misunderstanding doesnt happen. there's one we fixed up/

its also a direct fit for inclusion in this thread too so I like that one post.

there is no training in today's cycling articles or workups that allow for a zero wait cycle on a new tank, but those cured rock transfers are out there and hidden in details within people's setup description. As we all carve down what it means to cycle and someone makes a new article or reference set off those carvings, complete and total skip cycle setups will finally get a solid place of inclusion.

****that aquarist can't gain more fish carry ability by waiting*** is key. the surface area is/was maxed out and stays that way as long as remains wet, in a home. The only way to increase carry ability in that tank is to add more surface area, or, keep the current surface area very clean so that clogging won't lower porosity in places where current slams wastewater into active surfaces.

we wouldnt test for nitrite, ammonia, or any of it. scums and algae attached and slugs means its 100% ready rock for reefing

visual benthic cue cycling off pics and description/no testing req'd. there is nothing in former cycling rules that teaches visual cue cycling we had to adapt to it, to be ripped off less by local fish stores and at times online peers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LRT

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
22,561
Reaction score
21,791
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I don’t think I can disagree with this more.

Firstly, the phrase what is “common to reefing” is not helpful in the least to someone starting out in the hobby. There are definitely people that are able to push the envelope with stocking by running oversized skimmers, packed refugiums or other methods of export. There are others who struggle to keep 2 fish alive.

Secondly, if you think dropping 20 fish into the tank at one time will not cause any changes to a fallow tank why not drop 40? Hell why not pour a bottle of ammonia into the tank since apparently the magical bacteria can handle any load.

It is not rational or reasonable to say that there are no limits or to try to use inductive reasoning to apply a hard rule ( wait so many days/weeks/months) to all systems when the systems are inherently different. Instead we should educate on responsible methodology that can be applied in different situations.
Spot on
 
OP
OP
LRT

LRT

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
42,134
Location
mesa arizona
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
If you start from scratch - complete new everything. No organic matter - nothing - total clean tank. The only ammonia source is the amount that will be excreted by the fish gills - there is no organic matters in the system that will be breakdown to ammonia of heterotrophic bacteria. There is a small ammonia excretion from the fish metabolism but it so small that we do not need to take that in calculation now (if you do not want to put in 100 fishes the same time). Where will the N bioload come from? It comes from the food - as i have say fifty eleven times now - between 1/2 an hour to 2-3 hours after feeding - around 60 - 70 % of the foods N content will be excreted as NH4 from the gills of the fish. (to be correct 80 % of the N is surplus - will not be fish biomass and 80 % of tis surplus will be excreted out from the gills (around) 0.8*0.8 = 0.64 = 64%) dry food content around 40 % protein (read on the package). Protein in general content 16 % N -> 1 g of dry food content 1*0,4*0.16 = 0.064 g N. Of this 64 % will be excreted - means that 0.064*0.64 = 0,038 g N will come out as NH4-N in the water -> 18/14*0.038 = 0.049 g or 49 mg NH4( N= 14; H= 1; NH4=18).

This means that around (at least in the right county) of every 1 g dry food with 40% protein you fish will excrete around 0.05 g (50 mg) NH4. In 10 liters - it will be 5 mg/l (ppm), in 100 L it will be 0.5 mg/L (ppm) and in 1000 L it will be 0.05 mg/L (ppm) total ammonia in worst case. If you use frozen natural food like adult brine shrimps - dive the figure with 5.
It means that 1 g frozen adult brine shrimp will contribute with 0,01 g (10 mg) - in 10 L -> 1 mg/L (ppm) - in 100 l -> 0,1 mg/L (ppm) NH4
A cube brine shrimp weight around 5 g - it means that it will give around 0.05g (50 mg) NH4. In 100 liters - it will be 0.5 mg/L (ppm)

This is a calculation that shows the ballpark. If you get fish the second day - feed very sparsely the first three weeks (after my 15 steps) and gradually rise it - you fine if you use addition of nitrification bacteria in one or another way - but you can see how little you should feed.

If you want to start totally fishless - add 0.01 mg/L NH4 (ammonia) every day (and rise it slowly till you come up to your calculated feeding the first time) for some weeks together with addition of nitrification bacteria of some type (bottled, soilfiltrate, used gravel, used filter or so.) If you also use a internal foam filter in the start - you will speed up the process.

If you want to feed with 1 cube frozen artemis when your fish arrive - you should prepare the aquarium to manage around 0.5 mg/L NH4 per day if your tank is 100L

This low ammonia concentrations is difficult to measure with our equipments - therefore in order to know if the nitrification cycle works - use nitrite measurements. It should show below 0.1 ppm NO3 - IMO. After the introduction rise your feeding slowly

Sincerely Lasse
@Lasse I do understand your reasoning on not checking ammonia because of the difficulty to check it.
I just wanted to know if you ever actually have check ammonia and how it tracks out in relationship to nitrites in your testing?
Really do appreciate you taking the time to write this up.
In case anyone missed it heres those weights and measures we can use to fine tune feeds to match our particular bioloads.
Ridiculous to think of the possibilities and ways we could use this when applying different means and methods to building and stocking a tank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top