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

[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.

The methods we use in the hobby are not enough sensitive according to either free or total ammonia. I know that - therefore i have not test ammonia ever (with hobby tests) With lab equipment - I have done it for a living during several years. According to test if the nitrification cycle is completed or not - there is one test that can be used. The nitrite test. It works and normally it is sensitive enough. You can use hanna Checker here but there is a lot of colour tests thats is good too. Some ntrite - you alway have (0.02 - 0.05)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[LRT]

The methods we use in the hobby are not enough sensitive according to either free or total ammonia. I know that - therefore i have not test ammonia ever (with hobby tests) With lab equipment - I have done it for a living during several years. According to test if the nitrification cycle is completed or not - there is one test that can be used. The nitrite test. It works and normally it is sensitive enough. You can use hanna Checker here but there is a lot of colour tests thats is good too. Some ntrite - you alway have (0.02 - 0.05)

Sincerely Lasse

Thank you sir. Can you tell me what ratios you see in healthy fully cycled system when you compare nitrites to ammonia lab grade equipment?
I know it can't be applied to every typical system and used only for refference considering the equipment grade being used.
Strictly for informational purposes only

 

[MnFish1]

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Its entirely out of date and needs to be refined.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.

I disagree. The question really is one of 2 things:

If as some say - the cycle is predictably 'done' at x days - there is no need for testing or anything else - just wait x days.

If as others say - each tank is different, then testing to determine an endpoint is required - then the question comes up - to what point is the endpoint 'cycled' - thats a different story. Then testing seems to be needed?

If as still others say - bottled bacteria protects against all of this - or live sand etc) - none of this is an issue either.

The 3 are mutually exclusive - given the parameters. its not a personal or personality argument - its common sense you can not make argument 1 and make argument 2 or 3, etc IMHO - at least the way my mind understands it

 

[Lasse]

There is no ratio - it is seamless more or less in our low loaded systems. in fish farms you have to work with ph in order to get down the amount of free ammonia

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

****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.

Prove it. This makes some sense - i.e. if you take bacteria and ammonia and put them into a glass tank the surface area will be limiting. If you take Bacteria and rock in a glass tank - surface area will not be limiting depending on the amount of rock.

 

[LRT]

I disagree. The question really is one of 2 things:

If as some say - the cycle is predictably 'done' at x days - there is no need for testing or anything else - just wait x days.

If as others say - each tank is different, then testing to determine an endpoint is required - then the question comes up - to what point is the endpoint 'cycled' - thats a different story. Then testing seems to be needed?

If as still others say - bottled bacteria protects against all of this - or live sand etc) - none of this is an issue either.

The 3 are mutually exclusive - given the parameters. its not a personal or personality argument - its common sense you can not make argument 1 and make argument 2 or 3, etc IMHO - at least the way my mind understands it

I see it like there really is no argument.
The nomenclature and the science is there and its pure gold.
We do start at point A regardless.
The difference is we know alot more about part B to make new assessments to create more efficient means and methods to get us to part C.
Part C is simple. A continuous cycle of life made up of all parts.

 

[MnFish1]

I see it like there really is no argument.
The nomenclature and the science is there and its pure gold.
We do start at point A regardless.
The difference is we know alot more about part B to make new assessments to create more efficient means and methods to get us to part C.
Part C is simple. A continuous cycle of life made up of all parts.

Yes and no - IMHO - you're kind of spouting fish psychobabble. No offense - what you said above makes no sense to me. Except - yes we're trying to make more effiecient steps from A to B to C. But there is no new information presented as to how to do that - Or did I miss it? It seems like you're trying to straddle a fence - a bit - not wanting to disagree. The truth is - there are 2 theories being discussed - which are diametrically opposed - and one has to be wrong (I don't know which is right or wrong)

1. Bacteria - even in the absence of an overabundance of ammonia will cover a tank's surface area - and allow a full bioload

-or -

2. Bacteria grow to the level of ammonia which is in the tank - beyond that they compete - or go dormant.

Pick one. Then we can have a discussion about this IMHO.

 

[LRT]

Yes and no - IMHO - you're kind of spouting fish psychobabble. No offense - what you said above makes no sense to me. Except - yes we're trying to make more effiecient steps from A to B to C. But there is no new information presented as to how to do that - Or did I miss it? It seems like you're trying to straddle a fence - a bit - not wanting to disagree. The truth is - there are 2 theories being discussed - which are diametrically opposed - and one has to be wrong (I don't know which is right or wrong)

1. Bacteria - even in the absence of an overabundance of ammonia will cover a tank's surface area - and allow a full bioload

-or -

2. Bacteria grow to the level of ammonia which is in the tank - beyond that they compete - or go dormant.

Pick one. Then we can have a discussion about this IMHO.

I've picked mine.
What im trying not do is exhaust readers with meaningless exhaustive arguments that somehow always end up with everyone agreeing every time. Its pointless and exhausting.
I've heard your points and politely agree to disagree on some of them hahaha

 

[DrZoidburg]

Other than the banter I don't think many are even giving this the time of day. It would be interesting what other people think. Why even bother to make title in the form of a question if others don't comment.

 

[MnFish1]

I've picked mine.
What im trying not do is exhaust readers with meaningless exhaustive arguments that somehow always end up with everyone agreeing every time. Its pointless and exhausting.
I've heard your points and politely agree to disagree on some of them hahaha

OK - lets hear it? what is your philosophy? Because after 2 weeks - I'm not sure I know what it is? Right? On the one hand - we were discussing whether it made sense to add coral first- and then fish. On the other hand I think you said you wouldn't do anything except the normal cycling tradition (Ammonia/Nitrite/Nitrate) - and THEN you would add stuff - but perhaps it could be quicker. Then I thought I heard you saying you agree there is a specific date where a tank is cycled - and all is good. Of course we all know and agree that moving livestock from one tank to another - quickly - will not be a problem - that was never a debate IMHO. So - Frankly - I'm not sure exactly where we are - And I have a feeling I know why that is. But - between you and me - what is it that you agree with - and what do you disagree with

 

[LRT]

Hope that comment wasn't meant for me and definetely didn't mean it to be offensive.
I'm totally geeking out and digging the conversation personally. I dont need to agree with everyone's elses opinion to do that. If people want to banter. By all means get your banter on All im trying to do at this point is not get dragged into pointless exhaustive arguments for arguments sake

Other than the banter I don't think many are even giving this the time of day. It would be interesting what other people think. Why even bother to make title in the form of a question if others don't comment.

 

[DrZoidburg]

Hope that comment wasn't meant for me and definetely didn't mean it to be offensive.
I'm totally geeking out and digging the conversation personally. I dont need to agree with everyone's elses opinion to do that. If people want to banter. By all means get your banter on All im trying not to do at this point is not get dragged into pointless exhaustive arguments for arguments sake

No... like 6000 other members... what do they think.

 

[LRT]

No... like 6000 other members... what do they think.

I'm not sure I'm following?
I think I've been more than cordial and dignified with every member that has posted in this thread.
If I didn't want to hear the thoughts why else would I have posted the thread?

 

[MnFish1]

My comment was meant for you @LRT. Seriously - what is the actual goal. IMHO - and no offense to anyone here - especially you - the whole idea has been derailed by 'skip cycles', 'work threads', and other things that ignore science. I've tried to bring the discussion back to science - but that hasn't worked well. So - are we discussing whether its best to add coral first then fish (I think perhaps thats valid), are we talking about how the ammonia cycle works, in general, etc etc etc - we're all over the place. I was merely asking 'whats you're goal'?

 

[LRT]

I'm totally lost at this point hahaha

 

[MnFish1]

Hope that comment wasn't meant for me and definetely didn't mean it to be offensive.
I'm totally geeking out and digging the conversation personally. I dont need to agree with everyone's elses opinion to do that. If people want to banter. By all means get your banter on All im trying to do at this point is not get dragged into pointless exhaustive arguments for arguments sake

One problem - is that 1) most people aren't cycling tanks every month - so for people with cycled tanks - they think their method is best. 2) People that are giving advice to other people that are cycling tans for the first time have their own opinions - prejudices, etc - whether right or wrong. Most people have no comment because most people don't care. IMHO - the people that do care are commenting. No-one - is arguing for 'argument's sake - IMHO - unless you're one of the one with your own viewpoint - that you want to confirm.

 

[LRT]

My comment was meant for you @LRT. Seriously - what is the actual goal. IMHO - and no offense to anyone here - especially you - the whole idea has been derailed by 'skip cycles', 'work threads', and other things that ignore science. I've tried to bring the discussion back to science - but that hasn't worked well. So - are we discussing whether its best to add coral first then fish (I think perhaps thats valid), are we talking about how the ammonia cycle works, in general, etc etc etc - we're all over the place. I was merely asking 'whats you're goal'?

I feel like we've had this discussion at least 4 times now.
Im sorry if you don't get or understand the goal by now. Like I said I cant make everyone happy I guess

 

[LRT]

Are we going to exhaust the readers with 2 more pages of pointless discussion about discussions we have already agreed to disagree on?
Its childish and exhausting.
Too many folks posting in this thread having meaningful useful conversations in this thread to exhaust them with it again.
Sincerely

 

[LRT]

Sorry all. I apologize for my part in all that. Ignore button has been deployed once again.

 

[Big Smelly fish]

Other than the banter I don't think many are even giving this the time of day. It would be interesting what other people think. Why even bother to make title in the form of a question if others don't comment.

I been thinking pretty much the same thing, it’s time to put to an actual test and the really only way is to have people do it and post the success or failure. If you are going to say the ways of the past are old and there’s a new , better and faster way. Then it needs to be tried by new people who are starting out or starting a new tank.
I think this thread is so large and moved along at a fast pace it’s gotten to a place most aren’t even giving it the time of day.