Yet another Cycling Post (Maybe I'm ok?)

arking_mark

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,231
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Potomac
Yeah. Nitrates are a bit high, as is Nitrite.

The gold standard is 24hrs and not 48hrs. I'd play it safe and just finish up following Dr. Tims fishless cycle. You already paid for the bacteria and ammonia. Reefing is a marathon and not a sprint.
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
21,865
Reaction score
17,898
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
tejas
Lets ask it this way

what if Siberwulf was invited to macna with his system before its assembled.

in order to make the start date for the show, when should he have started this cycle prep?

remember convention start dates don't just flex around whether we believe api in one thread and then state its inaccurate in another...a start date means a predicted timeframe, before you've even assembled the tank.


so what's his required prior start date for completion on time, if that time is not right now?

old rules, for buyers, always have a doubt, watch for doubt. Something is always not ready yet, wait longer, buy something. old rules state in one thread that api is known to misread, and then fully accept the 5 ppm statement as accurate in another, based on that thread's title solely.



new rules, from sellers for the last 30 years, specifically give you total predictive power over cycling I don't think the links could possibly be more indicative of this ability. we do not need any testing at all to cycle any type of reef tank, we have testless options discovered by new science (linked excessively too)

new rules ascribe consistent, and fully predictable, cycling timelines and outcomes relative to the types of rocks and inoculation source being considered. we do NOT blanket cycle every tank the same way using updated cycling science rules.


and with that, we're able to skip cycle full reefs to a show, and then back home again, with zero losses. **we're able to set up instant dry start reefs at the show, to show bottle bac power with zero delay, and those systems run indefinitely just like this link shows, there are no stalled cycles even with dry starts:


we have now proven that no cycles stall out between both live rock skip cycles and in dry starts. if they did, a third of the entrants at MACNA could not make it. They 100% always make it, while forum cyclers struggle and click buy and can never start any reef 'safely' on time because that's rushing


buyer's science vs seller's science.
 
Last edited:

arking_mark

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,231
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Potomac
Lets ask it this way

what if Siberwulf was invited to macna with his system before its assembled.

in order to make the start date for the show, when should he have started this cycle prep?

remember convention start dates don't just flex around whether we believe api in one thread and then state its inaccurate in another...a start date means a predicted timeframe, before you've even assembled the tank.


so what's his required prior start date for completion on time, if that time is not right now?

old rules, for buyers, always have a doubt, watch for doubt. Something is always not ready yet, wait longer, buy something.



new rules, from sellers for the last 30 years, specifically give you total predictive power over cycling I don't think the links could possibly be more indicative of this ability.

As far as I know, Siberwulf hasn't been invited to display their tank at Macna and has no fixed date to have the tank ready. So they should take the safe route.

Now if the live rock they are using was fully cycled...they should have insta-cycled and don't need prep time.

However, if the tank insta-cycled, it would be able to handle 2ppm in 24hrs, which according to the OP it can't yet.
 
OP
Siberwulf

Siberwulf

Active Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
258
Reaction score
309
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
DFW
As far as I know, Siberwulf hasn't been invited to display their tank at Macna and has no fixed date to have the tank ready. So they should take the safe route.

Now if the live rock they are using was fully cycled...they should have insta-cycled and don't need prep time.

However, if the tank insta-cycled, it would be able to handle 2ppm in 24hrs, which according to the OP it can't yet.

This last line. I'm questioning just how "cycled" the LR was from the LFS. In theory with that, plus the live sand, it should drop ammonia out SUPER fast, especially with a bottle of Dr. Tim's in there. Maybe this is less about skip cycling, and more about the LFS charging more for something they shouldn't have.
 
AquaCave Logo Banner

arking_mark

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,231
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Potomac
This last line. I'm questioning just how "cycled" the LR was from the LFS. In theory with that, plus the live sand, it should drop ammonia out SUPER fast, especially with a bottle of Dr. Tim's in there. Maybe this is less about skip cycling, and more about the LFS charging more for something they shouldn't have.
Completely agree.

So it could be your testing is inaccurate and the tank is cycled or the rock and sand you received was not adequately cycled and doesn't yet have enough bacteria to support the tank yet.
 

Azedenkae

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
2,001
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Seattle
This last line. I'm questioning just how "cycled" the LR was from the LFS. In theory with that, plus the live sand, it should drop ammonia out SUPER fast, especially with a bottle of Dr. Tim's in there. Maybe this is less about skip cycling, and more about the LFS charging more for something they shouldn't have.
Absolutely. So a bit of context, 2ppm is the amount of ammonia expected to be produced by a fully stocked tank daily. The recommended amount of live rock is 1-1.5 lb per gallon, so yours is already close towards the 1.5 lb per gallon mark, not to mention all that sand (though I think @taricha might disagree about whether sand does anything at all).

Regardless, even at 1 lb per gallon, it should defo be enough rock to handle 2ppm a day. I have less than 1lb per gallon by the way, for what it is worth.

So it is good that you are 'testing' your nitrification, so to speak. Even though it is expected that live rock when bought should be 'of good quality'/'well-established' enough to handle 2ppm ammonia a day, well that is not always the case. Could be dry rock that the LFS had only put in the tank for a short period. Could be live rock that could have done its thing before, but may have been transported dry to save costs and maybe even stored dried. If nitrifiers are dried for long enough, they don't immediately recover after re-wetting.

Either way, the exact cause does not matter so much as, at this point, clearly your nitrifiers are not able to as effectively handle ammonia as they are expected to.

You kind have two choices now. The point of ensuring 2ppm can be handled is to fully stock the tank from the get go. If you just want to slowly add things, then even 1ppm a day should be okay.

Personally, I want to be sure it is 2ppm a day. But yeah, your choice here.
 
OP
Siberwulf

Siberwulf

Active Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
258
Reaction score
309
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
DFW
Absolutely. So a bit of context, 2ppm is the amount of ammonia expected to be produced by a fully stocked tank daily. The recommended amount of live rock is 1-1.5 lb per gallon, so yours is already close towards the 1.5 lb per gallon mark, not to mention all that sand (though I think @taricha might disagree about whether sand does anything at all).

Regardless, even at 1 lb per gallon, it should defo be enough rock to handle 2ppm a day. I have less than 1lb per gallon by the way, for what it is worth.

So it is good that you are 'testing' your nitrification, so to speak. Even though it is expected that live rock when bought should be 'of good quality'/'well-established' enough to handle 2ppm ammonia a day, well that is not always the case. Could be dry rock that the LFS had only put in the tank for a short period. Could be live rock that could have done its thing before, but may have been transported dry to save costs and maybe even stored dried. If nitrifiers are dried for long enough, they don't immediately recover after re-wetting.

Either way, the exact cause does not matter so much as, at this point, clearly your nitrifiers are not able to as effectively handle ammonia as they are expected to.

You kind have two choices now. The point of ensuring 2ppm can be handled is to fully stock the tank from the get go. If you just want to slowly add things, then even 1ppm a day should be okay.

Personally, I want to be sure it is 2ppm a day. But yeah, your choice here.

Kinda what I was thinking. I realize it's not a race. I dooooo really want to turn the lights on though. Doing that, I feel is going to lead to some algae issues, even with some Chaeto in my sump. The thought about starting with some CUC and slow feeding some fish food (real kind, not flake stuff) is hopefully going to A) Feed them a little, but allow them to much any of the Ugly Phase stuff, and B) give the nitrifying bacteria some more runway to ramp up. Realistically, given a 30 day QA period on fish, and the fact I'm going to be traveling a bit, I don't envision getting fish in here until probably sometime in August. Just want something alive in here until then. Is that took risky? Am I going to murder my CUC with this approach?
 

arking_mark

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
1,231
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Potomac
Kinda what I was thinking. I realize it's not a race. I dooooo really want to turn the lights on though. Doing that, I feel is going to lead to some algae issues, even with some Chaeto in my sump. The thought about starting with some CUC and slow feeding some fish food (real kind, not flake stuff) is hopefully going to A) Feed them a little, but allow them to much any of the Ugly Phase stuff, and B) give the nitrifying bacteria some more runway to ramp up. Realistically, given a 30 day QA period on fish, and the fact I'm going to be traveling a bit, I don't envision getting fish in here until probably sometime in August. Just want something alive in here until then. Is that took risky? Am I going to murder my CUC with this approach?

You should be safe as long as your ammonia is 0 and your bioload doesn't exceed your ability to process it.

Plan as stated looks safe enough to me.
 
Tidal Gardens

Azedenkae

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
2,001
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Seattle
Kinda what I was thinking. I realize it's not a race. I dooooo really want to turn the lights on though. Doing that, I feel is going to lead to some algae issues, even with some Chaeto in my sump. The thought about starting with some CUC and slow feeding some fish food (real kind, not flake stuff) is hopefully going to A) Feed them a little, but allow them to much any of the Ugly Phase stuff, and B) give the nitrifying bacteria some more runway to ramp up. Realistically, given a 30 day QA period on fish, and the fact I'm going to be traveling a bit, I don't envision getting fish in here until probably sometime in August. Just want something alive in here until then. Is that took risky? Am I going to murder my CUC with this approach?
At this point, no. I am unsure how ammonia affects cuc, but with the ammonia oxidation capacity at this point, you should be good to add cuc and turn on lights and all that.
 

taricha

2500 Club Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,728
Reaction score
5,083
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
So a bit of context, 2ppm is the amount of ammonia expected to be produced by a fully stocked tank daily.
just curiosity, where's this expectation from?
(I calculate my food inputs at possibly generating 0.1-0.4ppm ammonia per day but I have small fish / lightly feed)

not to mention all that sand (though I think @taricha might disagree about whether sand does anything at all).

Well cycled sand can do a lot, but it's a question of whether the sand maintains that nitrification once lights are on and livestock is in.

BTW, I think the OP has plenty of nitrification to be safe going forward.
 

Azedenkae

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
2,001
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Seattle
just curiosity, where's this expectation from?
(I calculate my food inputs at possibly generating 0.1-0.4ppm ammonia per day but I have small fish / lightly feed)
Good question, and I actually don't know. I am curious about it as well, but it had just always been quoted in cycling instructions so I kept it in my suggestions.

There were two or three cases I saw before (on Reddit) where someone was actually measuring ammonia quite diligently and had either one or small clowns, and I calculated the rise in ammonia to be 0.2 to 0.5 ppm a day for them, and this is despite there already be some ammonia oxidation. Of course, that meant I could not really calculate the exact amount of ammonia produced from waste produced by the fish, but multiplying that by the expected amount of fish that should be in the tank and I got between 1 to 1.6 ppm (not including the amount that would be oxidized to nitrite). So I figured yeah, 2ppm sounds like a good number to hit.
 
OP
Siberwulf

Siberwulf

Active Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
258
Reaction score
309
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
DFW
So quick update: Testing this AM and Ammonia is still at 0. Yay! Nitrites did come down to 0, which is a good sign. Nitrates are not zero, not a shocker there. Hit it with a final dose of Ammonia and pending some good results tomorrow AM, we should be cycled...

I did notice that my Alk test came back at 8.4, which is what I'd previously been dosing to the past couple days. Is this expected? I was legit expecting it to be at 7.9 like before.

(and pH is a whole nother story...)
 

Azedenkae

Valuable Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
2,140
Reaction score
2,001
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
Seattle
So quick update: Testing this AM and Ammonia is still at 0. Yay! Nitrites did come down to 0, which is a good sign. Nitrates are not zero, not a shocker there. Hit it with a final dose of Ammonia and pending some good results tomorrow AM, we should be cycled...

I did notice that my Alk test came back at 8.4, which is what I'd previously been dosing to the past couple days. Is this expected? I was legit expecting it to be at 7.9 like before.

(and pH is a whole nother story...)
I don't dose Alk so can't really comment there lol, but well hopefully the reading is accurate coz 8.4 is defo within the range one wants.
 
A Piece of the Ocean for Every Reef Tank
OP
Siberwulf

Siberwulf

Active Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
258
Reaction score
309
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
DFW
I don't dose Alk so can't really comment there lol, but well hopefully the reading is accurate coz 8.4 is defo within the range one wants.
I ran it the first time and it came back at 8.4. I said "Well I screwed that up" and reran it. Came up 8.3. I'll call that a win.
 
OP
Siberwulf

Siberwulf

Active Member
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
View Badges
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
258
Reaction score
309
Review score
+0 /0 /-0
Location
DFW
ok, quick update! Nitrite and Ammonia are still zero, which is good. Nitrates though seem to have skyrocketed. Is it time for a water change? Doing the Triton method, so I'm wondering if I should let it ride or not? I've got Chaeto blooming like crazy in my sump and starting to get GHA in there as well. Should I WC or drop lights in intensity/duration?
 

Toys For Kids Drive

Untitled-2 copy.jpg

Have you ever had a nano reef tank?

  • I have one now (leave a photo in the thread)

    Votes: 178 47.3%
  • Yes, but in the past

    Votes: 84 22.3%
  • No and no plans to have one

    Votes: 59 15.7%
  • No but I want to have one in the future

    Votes: 48 12.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 1.9%
Joes
Top