I find it amazing that in 2023 we/the hobby/ all cycling umpires/ are not in agreement over basic processes that run our tanks
we are all able to set up reefs that carry life, that's the marker of being cycled. uncycled tanks can't carry life...
its the hindsight analysis where disagreements come into play/do uncycled tanks carry life that acts normal, feeds normal? this is the ongoing evolution.
Add to this fact: there are no formal new articles on cycling science. we all have to wing it because Bingman has not written one/ Randy/the only writeups and podium talks on cycling come from bottle bac sellers with a profit margin involved and that's never going to work for me
its the same as no checks and balances in a governing body to have that bias on the official committee of cycling practices. we might as well have mortgage bankers and real estate persons holed up in the same offices, giving direct $ kickbacks for every successful loan if checks and balances aren't required for reefing procedure.
a HUGE impact in cycling disagreements is that none of us have a formal, nonbiased study to link that isn't easily undone by reading a few web example links. For example: we were recently told from the macna podium by a rather elevated and formal speaker that reef water doesn't contain cycling bacteria. once I saw a web thread of a huge dry reef getting cycled solely off water from another reef, in a couple weeks time, I could no longer accept bottle bac sellers as formal reviewers of cycling methods. checks and balances became necessary
I wish a neutral party chemist would step up and get that article written, and discuss the impacts to cycling that digital ammonia measurements has brought to the table. The sheer consistency in timing they reflect compared to the non shared timing of cycles that non digital test kits show must be discussed before a method is chosen.