Trying to zero in on where it went sideways.

[LoveReefer]

Hey people. My biological filter is acting strange.

I'm still fairly new to the aquarium world.

Ah...Where to begin?

On the 3rd of June I finally got my 90 gallon pieced together and watered it up. It was a long time coming. Anyway, I was unsure how I was going to cycle so it sat (pumps/lights/heaters etc. going) for about 5 days before I decided I was going to phantom feed using frozen mysis. I've used a raw shrimp once before and figured this wasn't much different. I added one cube every 2 days. Finally I was able to detect ammonia after about 6 days and quit adding the mysis. The API test never displayed any shade of green that is on the reference card but it was a dark green nonetheless(API). I tested what seemed like everyday in anticipation of the ammonia being converted into Nitrite. After what seemed like forever (around June 20-25) there were finally Nitrites showing. I remember seeing 2ppm. At about this time is when the diatoms started to come in heavily. They didn't last long and neither did my Nitrites. On July 2nd I was testing 0 ammonia and 0 Nitrites. Nitrates were present to the tune of about 40-50ppm. I was finished with the cycle and ready for my first water change. For the record I didn't change or clean my filter socks 1 time throughout this whole process.

This is where things get a little hairy in my opinion. I didn't do the first water change when I should have. In fact.... I didn't touch the tank after cycle for another 3 months! The only thing I was doing is refilling the ATO res. I had some things in life come up that demanded my attention instead. Anyway....during this 3 months there was a small amount of green algae that started to form on my rocks but that also didn't last long. It turned into a dark green film algae that, interestingly, was only growing on the glass. During this time I thought for sure things were whacked out in the tank and I was doomed whenever I had an opportunity to get back to it. The film algae very slowly began to go away and it would come off in huge sheets. Fast forward only a tiny bit and sometime around the first week in October, I was able to finally give it attention. Late at night I used a new plastic putty knife and scraped the back of the glass while the algae peeled in large sheets very easily. I caught what I could of it and the rest was taken by my overflow into the filter socks. The socks were changed after this. The next morning I tested ammonia, nitrite, and nitrates. Mainly to see where my nitrate level stood. I was afraid of the result. To my surprise...All three tests came back undetectable. Nitrate undetectable? How? Keep in mind STILL no water change. So I naturally jumped online to see what I could figure out.

I talked with a few local reefer buddies and it was made aware that my biological filter should still be there good to go. I was confident as were they that I could slowly start adding fish. My wife picked an Azure Damsel. The day we added the fish I made a conscious decision to go ahead and order a clean up crew. My rocks were covered in a light brown fuzzy algae that I wanted to get a jump start on. My thought process was that there was enough food to keep my CUC satisfied and by the time they arrived my new fish would have pooped/whatever and kept some algae growth going for them. They arrived roughly a week after I added the fish. Everything was going well. My fish was eating well. It was vibrant in color and very active. I noticed my CUC was doing a serious number to the algae that I had and they were literally turning my rocks white again in a matter of days. I conservatively fed the tank 1/4 cube strained frozen mysis. My fish ate and the CUC cleaned up the rest. I was changing filter socks almost daily at this point trying to get back into the swing of things.

I came home from work last Monday to the Damsel jumping into my overflow almost as if he desired to be in there strongly lol. I netted him out a couple times and placed him back into the tank. I noticed something wasn't right with it. It was breathing extremely fast and would dart very quickly then shut down as if there was no energy at all left in it. The fish struggled hard not to get swept into my MP40. I observed him for a little while until he got wedged into a rock crevice upside down. It took some work to free him and I damaged the top of his head a little. He went into the sump where he didn't have to work hard for anything. I tried to think of everything possible that could have caused this. Later that night I thought to test ammonia. It was 0.5ppm. The only thing I can think of is that he was harmed by the ammonia. That same night I done my first water change on the tank. After the WC my ammonia was an undetectable level. The damsel didn't make it through the night.

I started to wonder if my small feedings, even though light, were polluting the tank causing the spike in ammonia. I tested everyday for the next 4 days with same results. Zero. Zero ammonia, zero nitrites, zero nitrates. So I bought an orange spotted goby and a few frags last Saturday. Scared to feed anything at all, I turned my pumps off and dropped a couple shrimp in front of his face and he wanted nothing to do with it. They were quickly picked up by a hermit and nass snail. I haven't fed anything since. Still keeping an eye on ammonia daily, everything looked great. Until last night. Ammonia was showing what appeared to be in between 0.25 and 0.50. I ran up to the store and picked up some prime and Seed brand bacteria. After adding the bacteria and prime the levels of ammonia were still present but I was counting on the prime to do it's job. I'm more curious than anything what is going on in my tank.

Since adding the Damsel and CUC two weeks ago, along with my goby.....I have zero nitrates. There is still no algae growth at all in my tank. I understand how silly it is to complain about no algae growth and could very easily eat my words, but I'm curious about it. My skimmer stopped pulling any skimmate all together what seems like before I added the damsel. My clean up crew, I'm sure is starving. I've been having these ammonia spikes and drops but it's not being converted into nitrite or nitrate. Is that common? I know this is an extremely long over detailed write up for what is probably a seemingly simple explanation. I thought to be thorough and as detailed as possible for the best possible explanation. Is my biological filter extremely weak? How long should I expect to deal with these ammonia spikes? My fish needs to eat eventually. Should I keep throwing beneficial bacteria in a bottle at it with prime and hope to squeeze by without anymore casualties? My corals look fantastic through all of it. I would like to do my weekly water change today or tomorrow to continue getting into a rhythm. My alk and calc. is dropping lower than I would like it to. What about skimming, is it ideal to keep pulling out what little bit of waste I can skimming? I could easily be overthinking things on a whole other level, but I'm not real sure what, if any action to take right now. Wait? I don't think its catastrophic by any means, but as a thinker/problem solver. It bothers me when I'm unsure lol.

If you were patient enough or took the time out of your day to read this, it is very much appreciated. Any thoughts are welcomed. Thanks again.


Mike

 

[SDK]

If I am reading your posts correctly, the tank sat empty for a few months with no food being added. If that is correct, you are cycling again.

The nitrifying bacteria need something to eat, and would not sit in stasis at full strength for months with no food.

Yes, keep adding bacteria to get the ammonia down quickly. Once you get the cycle finished again you should not see further spikes.

If it was me I would keep the skimmer going, feed the damsel sparingly and get the tank settled into the routine you want to use moving forward

Just be ready as you will most likely go through diatoms and algae blooms again...

Good luck!

 

[AlexG]

Bacteria levels will fluctuate depending on the amount of bio-load in the tank. As the tank was sitting for some time the bacteria levels would have dropped. It is unfortunate to hear about your fish loss. Another thing to consider is the size of your CUC. What did you add for a CUC as this will add to the bioload of the system which can also contribute to having an additional ammonia spike. It sounds like you might be through the ammonia spikes as long as you add new life to the tank slowly and give the system time to naturally balance the biological filtration out. I would not be worried about needing to add supplements for the bacteria as it will naturally balance itself in time. I would keep the skimmer running as it not only skims but will also help to oxygenate the water.

 

[brandon429]

post an updated full tank shot, and from that we'll show how you have zero nitrites and ammonia no matter what api shows

 

[brandon429]

in no way is any part of your biofilter/filtration bac lacking or dead or stalled. its 1000% cycled, post pics we'll riff as to why

for starters, prime causes misreads on ammonia and nitrate and nitrite. we have to rely on tank pics now + known cycling timeframes every cycling tank has met (even when api disagrees)

the only way your system can be lacking bac after this long is if you dosed antibiotics. since you didnt, its as cycled now as it would be in the next 5 years wait. thats if you feed, dont feed, add bac, or dont add bac, you merely have a testing issue here its not biological. Any fish loss or misbehavior is related to your disease protocol not related to lack of filtration. even before pics, the algae you mentioned always comes after nitrifiers are completely done. the cuc and bioloading you've carried since setup time is also proof, truly unready cycles kill all the bioload overnite.

cycles are never, ever partially done they're either done and they run or they're not, and everything dies in ten hours after being added to the uncycled tank.

 

[SDK]

in no way is any part of your biofilter/filtration bac lacking or dead or stalled. its 1000% cycled, post pics we'll riff as to why

for starters, prime causes misreads on ammonia and nitrate and nitrite. we have to rely on tank pics now + known cycling timeframes every cycling tank has met (even when api disagrees)

the only way your system can be lacking bac after this long is if you dosed antibiotics. since you didnt, its as cycled now as it would be in the next 5 years wait. thats if you feed, dont feed, add bac, or dont add bac, you merely have a testing issue here its not biological. Any fish loss or misbehavior is related to your disease protocol not related to lack of filtration. even before pics, the algae you mentioned always comes after nitrifiers are completely done. the cuc and bioloading you've carried since setup time is also proof, truly unready cycles kill all the bioload overnite.

cycles are never, ever partially done they're either done and they run or they're not, and everything dies in ten hours after being added to the uncycled tank.

If you are implying that the bacteria in a tank that sat fallow for months is fully capable of instant heavy lifting without an adjustment period (cycle), that is incorrect.

He had an ammonia reading coupled with a fish in obvious respiratory distress before he added any Prime. That, coupled with a few decades of observational experience in my fish room would lead me to repeat my earlier advice.

Add bacteria if you have fish in there and proceed with caution.

 

[brandon429]

The reason I claimed that was our three and two year fallow proof tests collected on our cycling thread. Could go ten years, or twenty, if we're factoring the ways aquatic bacteria attained feed before humans bought something from a store to allow them to exist :)

The descriptors so far remark upon big-time bacteria feed and we'd assume all manner of feed was still there even if they didn't post such detail. If it's wet, it's self sustaining filtration bac and can never ever be starved in a home setting. They're so filthy and ripe with nitrifiers and feed floating about, contaminating in by direct and indirect means every minute. Compounding...

 

[BeejReef]

I normally agree w brandon, but wonder if your tank was ever cycled enough.
You converted ammonia to nitrite to nitrate... so, yes, you must have had all the different types of bacteria. The question in my mind is, did you have enough?

It sounds like you were ghost feeding pretty lightly and then sat fallow for a long time and had a good amount of algae (which also likes to eat ammonia). Basically, I wonder if the bacteria populations were ever able to multiply to a sufficiently high number that they'd have the capacity to handle the output from your livestock.

Is it possible that the algae had taken up a significant role in your ammonia processing and it all being eaten and cleaned left your system unable to process the ammonia, and why you're seeing rising levels and struggling fish.

I don't know, but you aksed us to think along with you..

 

[SDK]

The reason I claimed that was our three and two year fallow proof tests collected on our cycling thread. Could go ten years, or twenty, if we're factoring the ways aquatic bacteria attained feed before humans bought something from a store to allow them to exist :)

The descriptors so far remark upon big-time bacteria feed and we'd assume all manner of feed was still there even if they didn't post such detail. If it's wet, it's self sustaining filtration bac and can never ever be starved in a home setting. They're so filthy and ripe with nitrifiers and feed floating about, contaminating in by direct and indirect means every minute. Compounding...

I agree with everything you say above :)

However, in practice, bacteria in a fallow tank will need time to adjust/ramp up and/or multiply to adjust to a new level of input, which can cause what we commonly call a cycle. The semantics of how self sustaining bacterial populations are do not change that fact...

Again, to use the fish room analogy. In my "before kids" heyday, I had multiple tanks on racks that stayed wet for years without interruption. I was constantly moving fish around, doing breeding projects, etc. If any tank sat unoccupied for more than a few weeks, there was a definite difference in how quickly I could repopulate it without triggering a cycle.

The only exceptions were tanks stuffed with fast growing plants. However, when they sat empty, I had to toss in a pinch of food every few weeks to keep the plants from dying, so those technically were not sitting untouched.

 

[brandon429]

They're rare agreed, check out DJ city's rare measure. I spotted this like a rare gem plus he was willing to use the rock for new reef. His had lots more holdover feed than a bare starting tank due to quality of lr before the fallow garage run

Nano Build - Might start a Nano... 15gal Column (Need advice)

Hello I have a 110gal mixed reef that's doing pretty good. It's 5 years old and i'm happy with it. I have a LARGE maroon clown that decided to knock down large rocks so i'm rescaping the right side of that tank. I have a snowflake clown that has lived in the sump for the past year because the...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[LoveReefer]

I normally agree w brandon, but wonder if your tank was ever cycled enough.
You converted ammonia to nitrite to nitrate... so, yes, you must have had all the different types of bacteria. The question in my mind is, did you have enough?

It sounds like you were ghost feeding pretty lightly and then sat fallow for a long time and had a good amount of algae (which also likes to eat ammonia). Basically, I wonder if the bacteria populations were ever able to multiply to a sufficiently high number that they'd have the capacity to handle the output from your livestock.

Is it possible that the algae had taken up a significant role in your ammonia processing and it all being eaten and cleaned left your system unable to process the ammonia, and why you're seeing rising levels and struggling fish.

I don't know, but you aksed us to think along with you..

This is what I have been thinking too. I was unaware that algae consumes ammonia so you bring another good point to this theory. The cycle took place, there is no denying that. Like you, I feel that the cycle could have been "weak". I only ghost fed the tank at first until the ammonia test registered there was ammonia in the tank, then quit. As I mentioned before, the test read somewhere between 1.0ppm and 2.0ppm. The green color didn't match any sample color on the card where it was definitive. I remember clearly thinking "must be in between". Is it good practice to continue adding the ammonia source until a certain level of ammonia is present in the tank? I keep thinking back wondering "what if I bumped the ammonia to 4ppm or so" but I'm not sure that would have made a difference either. I'm still new to this game

All in all I think it's going to stabilize and be fine and dandy in the end regardless of what circumstance or sequence of events that lead me to where I am now. This is a passion of mine and I think it is safe to say the people of R2R share that passion. I thought it was worthy of a discussion. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. They're not too far off what I had rolling around my head.


Mike

 

[LoveReefer]

If I am reading your posts correctly, the tank sat empty for a few months with no food being added. If that is correct, you are cycling again.

The nitrifying bacteria need something to eat, and would not sit in stasis at full strength for months with no food.

Yes, keep adding bacteria to get the ammonia down quickly. Once you get the cycle finished again you should not see further spikes.

If it was me I would keep the skimmer going, feed the damsel sparingly and get the tank settled into the routine you want to use moving forward

Just be ready as you will most likely go through diatoms and algae blooms again...

Good luck!

Thanks for the reply.

This goes along with what BeejReef was saying. Mini cycles due to a bio filter that wasn't strong enough to keep up. I'll keep the skimmer running and I'm prepared to add bacteria when needed. I've tried not to think about going through new tank algae blooms again but if it happens, I sure hope my corals don't suffer too bad. They seem to be doing really well. Thanks for sharing your advice.


Mike

 

[LoveReefer]

in no way is any part of your biofilter/filtration bac lacking or dead or stalled. its 1000% cycled, post pics we'll riff as to why

for starters, prime causes misreads on ammonia and nitrate and nitrite. we have to rely on tank pics now + known cycling timeframes every cycling tank has met (even when api disagrees)

the only way your system can be lacking bac after this long is if you dosed antibiotics. since you didnt, its as cycled now as it would be in the next 5 years wait. thats if you feed, dont feed, add bac, or dont add bac, you merely have a testing issue here its not biological. Any fish loss or misbehavior is related to your disease protocol not related to lack of filtration. even before pics, the algae you mentioned always comes after nitrifiers are completely done. the cuc and bioloading you've carried since setup time is also proof, truly unready cycles kill all the bioload overnite.

cycles are never, ever partially done they're either done and they run or they're not, and everything dies in ten hours after being added to the uncycled tank.

Hello Brandon.

I will post a FTS for you. You seem very enthusiastic about this subject. I took some time and looked into some of your write-ups and read through what my brain would accept lol. You are obviously very passionate and driven to show a way of cycling a tank many don't even begin to think about, including myself. I lazily jumped into some forums, write-ups, and articles about the life span of bacteria within our aquariums. Quickly realized everything that I read was nothing more than anecdotal evidence with back and fourth...essentially never ending debate whether BB stayed alive within our tanks and for how long etc. Never did I come across any factual evidence that supported either sides claim. All dead ends. This left me even more confused.

I was having a conversation with my wife debating how scientists or what have you come up with a way to bottle this live bacteria and slap a shelf date on it 4 years from now but joe shmo over here is 100% sure bacteria is dead within hours without a food source. This got me thinking about what was truly in the bottle and how it worked so I dove into a few articles taking in... again...what I could. Most of it was over my head, but I did learn that it doesn't work like the bacteria in our tanks(while in the bottle) If I understand, It's almost like those sea monkeys I used to play with as a kid lol.

Anyhow, I still consider myself a novice when it comes to saltwater aquariums, but I have been around reef tanks for quite some time and freshwater for even longer. The store in which I choose to purchase my live stock from is well respected in it's quarantine and medicine practice prior to selling any live stock to the public. That added assurance... my acclimation practice, plus the fact that I am not the worst when it comes to spotting a sick fish, is enough to confidently tell you there is no lack in disease protocol here. The fish was healthy as can be. Suddenly shows symptoms of ammonia poisoning as I'm getting ammonia levels on my tests? It's laughable to chalk it up to "misbehavior" or "lack of disease protocol". It seems you are also assuming that my CUC and the bio load was introduced at setup time. I was very clear how the events unfolded. The fish, along with the CUC were added post cycle. The fact that everything wasn't stricken dead overnight is not an indicator that the tank was ready to take on live stock. I don't mean to come off as argumentative. I simply think the facts should be clear so everybody is on the same page here.

I respect you for your efforts and time spent working to show others that the cycle can be finished in a way not many people thought of.... at least I didn't or wouldn't. That doesn't make it the end all, be all though. The traditional ways have worked just fine for many many years, and still do. I look forward to more conversation.


Mike





Oh yeah......a pic....

 

[LoveReefer]

The reason I claimed that was our three and two year fallow proof tests collected on our cycling thread. Could go ten years, or twenty, if we're factoring the ways aquatic bacteria attained feed before humans bought something from a store to allow them to exist :)

The descriptors so far remark upon big-time bacteria feed and we'd assume all manner of feed was still there even if they didn't post such detail. If it's wet, it's self sustaining filtration bac and can never ever be starved in a home setting. They're so filthy and ripe with nitrifiers and feed floating about, contaminating in by direct and indirect means every minute. Compounding...

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say here but it sounded like you were too quick to assume once again. If I am wrong and misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize. I was very thorough about how my cycle went down and what was used when. I have not used a bottle of bacteria since my freshwater days back in high school until a couple of days ago. I personally believe in a long natural cycle. I didn't use it when the ammonia spike that I believe killed my fish popped up. I didn't have any at that time. It wasn't until a second ammonia spike after adding my goby 3 days ago that I felt the need to add bacteria because something was off with my bio filter.

 

[LoveReefer]

Bacteria levels will fluctuate depending on the amount of bio-load in the tank. As the tank was sitting for some time the bacteria levels would have dropped. It is unfortunate to hear about your fish loss. Another thing to consider is the size of your CUC. What did you add for a CUC as this will add to the bioload of the system which can also contribute to having an additional ammonia spike. It sounds like you might be through the ammonia spikes as long as you add new life to the tank slowly and give the system time to naturally balance the biological filtration out. I would not be worried about needing to add supplements for the bacteria as it will naturally balance itself in time. I would keep the skimmer running as it not only skims but will also help to oxygenate the water.

I took into account the CUC when brainstorming. I dismissed it because I was very conservative when adding my CUC. Reefcleaners suggested over what seemed like 100 snails/crabs for my 90 gallon. Instead I hand picked 5 nass snails, 4 trochus snails, 4 nerite snails, 2 hermits, and 1 emerald crab. I didn't think too hard about it...16 tiny mouths with tiny waste plus a small damsel. There's no way I could have predicted that would have put too much pressure on my bio filter. More evidence of a diminished or weak bio filter in my opinion too.

 

[brandon429]

It's accurate to state neither you nor I practice brevity in the lead up heh

Your cycle has the same ability to handle fish right now as if you cycled it with much more bacteria and ammonia than you have. How you started doesn't matter, it's the timeframe under water in the presence of bioload that matters. All you need is some ammonia, not a certain amount. The vast expanse of surface area coiled up in the rocks exceeds the requirement a few fish would have.

Bacteria do not grow and sustain on surfaces to match a bioload or amnt of ammonia we provide, to the disdain of 99% of readers. When you provide water, nutrient and time the surfaces reached their bac mass in 30 days and bac don't just stack infinitely or our tanks would opaque. They self regulate typically unless one is dosing vodka for example then surfaces max, and clouding moves to water. The biofilm encapsulating filter bac make them nearly immune to any variance in the tank, sustained or not. What they do and access becomes streamlined and independent from us after thirty days, literally all cycle charts are written not factoring use or non use of bottle bac.

Before seeing the fallow thread, everyone was sure bac could be starved. It's the inverse of the concern you have about us controlling bac with our offers or withholdings. The sand rinse thread is 23 pages of instantly removing sandbeds and letting the rocks handle all the fish load, with no ramp up, because rocks maintain consistent filter bac communities at all times, and ramp up is bogus biology it doesn't work that way. We remove entire dsb's all at once and the rocks don't take on more bacteria, we don't give enough time. They're already maxed, as yours are.

That you have provided water, 30 days and inoculation + ammonia is all it takes to cycle, and a partial cycle doesn't exist, a cycle is an all or nothing tipping point easily measured, but rarely accurately measured unless we are talking seneye. Let the record reflect all forms of cycling umpire kickback never come from a seneye user, they see to the hundred thousandths exactly what bac can do. Titration is the root of all doubt in reefing :) you can continue doubting your cycle or you can add fish now and let's document the result for our no test submersion time only cycling thread. We have about fifteen reefs just like yours / same timing and setup. What a reef can do after 30 days underwater is highly predictable.

Your reef is perfect, it's not sideways. You have the same titration test headaches 89% of titrators face. The only proof we can have isn't more testing non seneye, it's adding fish to see if they die overnite. I know you don't want to rush, so we w have to just read the other tanks like yours who did add fish successfully to know how your tank would do.

Here's a cycled tank with no nitrate just to show only ammonia performance matters in cycle closing.

My amonia, nitrite, and nitrate are at zero...

Hey guys, weird question here.. I jump started my cycle with a bottle of some Dr. Tims. Then I used a a couple doses (perhaps 3-4) of FaStart-M, and a couple doses of MicroBacter7 (perhaps 5-8), and even a dose (only one of this, I think) of Vibrant. My current ammonia, Nitrite, and Nitrate...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[LoveReefer]

Brandon,

I don't want for this to turn into a debate nor am I trying to discredit findings you may have. I am going to challenge some of your ideas though, in hopes you will provide some information to help clear the confusion I have. Some of your information goes against what is taught and what is "standard" or fundamental in this hobby.

Bacteria do not grow and sustain on surfaces to match a bioload or amnt of ammonia we provide, to the disdain of 99% of readers. When you provide water, nutrient and time the surfaces reached their bac mass in 30 days and bac don't just stack infinitely or our tanks would opaque. They self regulate..

This goes against everything I have ever read about the nitrogen cycle. I am very much apart of the 99% you speak of. I can't think of one time I have ever heard this claim before. When a fish or substantial bio load is added to an already cycled aquarium there are ammonia spikes. If the bacteria reaches mass after 30 days, what explains the ammonia spike? If I were to go by what you're saying, I could presumably add my entire fish list in one go after 30 days with no repercussions. If there is no fluctuation in the bacteria based on bio load, this should be no issue. Is this correct?

That you have provided water, 30 days and inoculation + ammonia is all it takes to cycle, and a partial cycle doesn't exist, a cycle is an all or nothing tipping point easily measured, but rarely accurately measured unless we are talking seneye. Let the record reflect all forms of cycling umpire kickback never come from a seneye user, they see to the hundred thousandths exactly what bac can do. Titration is the root of all doubt in reefing :) you can continue doubting your cycle or you can add fish now and let's document the result for our no test submersion time only cycling thread. We have about fifteen reefs just like yours / same timing and setup. What a reef can do after 30 days underwater is highly predictable

Hobby grade titration test kits are not 100% accurate, I understand that. However they provide accurate enough information for the hobbyist to have [for the most part] enough information to make take the actions needed. This is seen time and time again and successful reef aquariums are the result. I have read through every page in your "The microbiology of reef tank cycling" thread. The ratio of people "testing" this theory vs. people cycling the way it has been taught fundamentally is extremely small. Its < 1% of MEMBERS online at the time of writing this (2000) if we go by your thread alone. I would say it is fair to assume 2000 people is also an extremely small percent of actual registered members. When we look at the community as a whole...15-20 people "testing" is....nothing. Could there be variables where, while some get away with 30 days and done, others may not? I think it is fair to say we are merely spitting hairs? I can't disagree that a tank doesn't cycle in 30 days every time to SOME EXTENT, but is that claim used without the health and well being of our fish in mind? Sure, they might live through the harsh conditions they are thrown into because at this point the ammonia isn't as concentrated, but with the majority, it shows this doesn't always end well.

The sand rinse thread is 23 pages of instantly removing sandbeds and letting the rocks handle all the fish load, with no ramp up, because rocks maintain consistent filter bac communities at all times, and ramp up is bogus biology it doesn't work that way. We remove entire dsb's all at once and the rocks don't take on more bacteria, we don't give enough time. They're already maxed, as yours are.

I remember watching the progress of BRS' 160 gallon series on Youtube. I can recall the amount of instability and issues they dealt with while removing the sand in their 160. These guys are professionals with testing equipment we wish we had (seneye included) and with much better resources. What testing have you witnessed or done yourself can you provide me(other than only a few hobbyist in your thread) that will perused me into believing this works with zero negative effects?


I'm challenging your ideas and theories in hopes to gain knowledge and better myself in this hobby. In no way do I mean to imply that I "know better" or more. When something or someone disputes what is fundamentally sound and agreed upon by the majority, it is difficult to accept. Especially with very little factual data and only anecdotal evidence. I'm open minded, and hoping you will shed more light and facts about your claims.


Mike

 

[brandon429]

I thought you wrote well and it's great for science to challenge.

Anyone dealing with good science wants it this exact way :) my respects. I'm going to link you to the proof that ramp up is bunk science.

Link below isn't a 25 page distraction,
we're relying on live rock bacteria to never disappoint when we rob half the surface area out of the tank.

Once we establish the power of a tiny bit of live rock I think my claims for your tank won't sound cra

In this thread, for pages, we either remove totally or blast rinse a sandbed and the rocks have to instantly take over. Without ramp up

I make the case anyone can get lucky for three pages, but not this many. Simply skim the before and after pics tell me if you think we made a good case that reefers have circulated totally incorrect microbiology for a long time regarding live rock needing ramp up time.

The whole premise of the thread is that we shouldn't remove sandbeds in portions, because that's a detritus upwell risk and the locus of the risk in removing sandbeds. Due to rocks never, ever needing ramp up, we can produce a thread removing sandbeds that doesn't use ammonia testing ever, though we control it fully. (It's still pop tested anyway at times / logged as zero)

Ammonia is the most predictable param in reefing, such that no testing is required at any stage from cycle to move to troubleshooting. We can infer the ammonia from a few easy factors not involving anyone's test kit, you exceeded the factors we usually get in a description.

Claiming ramp up science/bunk isn't just to push buttons, it's why we are out to that many pages with no loss.

We save corals with accurate biology.



I hope it helps to make my case to see the accountability I want to take for making those claims. Kill someone's tank, drummed out of town :)


See Brian's work on this page. Instant removal, no ramp up. He measures ammonia *digitally* not with titration. I'll holler at him for an update in that thread

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-official-sand-rinse-thread-aka-one-against-many.230281/page-28

 

[brandon429]

Also, above when you mentioned ammonia spike, we have to be able to agree on accurate measure. We need to be speaking in solely digital measures to be consistent

Seneye ammonia, a good ref for accuracy.

We can't use API, or Red Sea, due to misreads which are notorious and searchable and affected by use of prime water conditioner

Digital ammonia readings seem to be reliable based on searches

Nitrate may or may not show in testing, many systems have to add stump remover though they're cycled

Those readings really matter in revealing what filter bacteria do and if it's on a variable or predictable time scale. Google searches on 'aquarium cycle chart' involve a similar timeframe no matter the page. We know which date nitrite drops to follow ammonia, at zero, if we solve for time. Per the charts.
I would expect overfeeding to kill the clean up crew and cause clouding


One thing at minimum the sand rinse thread shows using other people's cash and risk on the line/ years in one thread is the bacteria indeed can be removed instantly, and sandbed access in no way causes a cycle although all the old rules said so.

Everything they said can't be done to a sandbed, done.

The critical clues you provided were start date June, nitrates in July. Current time +3 mos later. Infallible cycle completed plus extra time for good measure
Free ammonia kills your clean up crew too, not just fish.


Fish death=describe your disease prevention protocol

Quarantine? Fallow? Tank transfer?

 

[LoveReefer]

Brandon,

I don't dismiss anything you have said without putting effort into thinking about it rationally and giving it a fair chance. I think I said it earlier, this is a passion of mine and to be able to discuss it with others who share the same passion is great enjoyment. At the end of the day when I view my aquarium I enjoy it and have no worries it is going to crash or anything of that nature. Regardless of how the tank cycled or is cycling, it's going to be ok lol. These discussions for me are to 1: Learn something new and 2: Maybe someone else looking for these answers or just overall curious as I am, can find value.

Also, above when you mentioned ammonia spike, we have to be able to agree on accurate measure. We need to be speaking in solely digital measures to be consistent

Respectfully, I can't agree with this at all. As I said before, I understand tritation testing methods are not 100% accurate. They WILL however, measure within a close enough degree to give the tester a good enough idea what is happening. If I start with pure RO/DI water and measure 0ppm ammonia then add ammonia to the water and have it register the ammonia on the test, It is believable the test is acting as it should. In the same regard, If my aquarium is testing 0ppm ammonia then testing after fish is added and it displays ammonia in the tank(in any amount) it is safe to say the test is doing what it should. Confirming the added fish has increased the bio load the biofilter can't handle. It doesn't necessarily need to be to the exact amount to make this assumption.

Free ammonia kills your clean up crew too, not just fish.

You are not wrong, but let's be more transparent about it. Snails and hermits for the most part are quite hardy and usually do o.k. I can think of a few examples personally where I've had no issues concerning ammonia and my CUC. Lucky? Maybe. I can say the same about damsels when talking about being hardy. When I added my damsel then measured ammonia in the aquarium, paired with proven signs of ammonia poisoning and lost the fish....I'm confident when I make the assumption that ammonia was a large (if not only) factor in the fish death. Unlucky? Maybe. Except this time I have data that explains what I was observing.

Quarantine? Fallow? Tank transfer?

I would refer you to post #13 in this thread. I will save you some time and quote it here:

"The store in which I choose to purchase my live stock from is well respected in it's quarantine and medicine practice prior to selling any live stock to the public. That added assurance... my acclimation practice, plus the fact that I am not the worst when it comes to spotting a sick fish, is enough to confidently tell you there is no lack in disease protocol here."

If you are asking if my tank was fallow, A large part of why I started this thread is because my tank sat essentially fallow for 3+ months.

The critical clues you provided were start date June, nitrates in July. Current time +3 mos later. Infallible cycle completed plus extra time for good measure

"Infallible" is a word I can't get behind right now. That is what my initial post was about for the most part. I'm having a hard time buying into the fact that bacteria in my aquarium reached mass 30 days after water and ammonia and doesn't fluctuate based on bio load. That's the one thing I'm really focused on. My thoughts are still in the range of a cycle that was "weak" due to insufficient amounts of ammonia to begin with, or the bacteria needed some time to adjust/ramp up/compensate for the added bio load after a fallow period. There's simply not enough evidence to outweigh observational experiences and successes of reef aquarium hobbyists since the 60's using essentially the same cycling methods and practices.