Bioload-Bacteria Relationship

TangLvr · Sep 19, 2024

Hello!

I have a 220 gallon with a 40 gallon sump that has been up 10 months. It sat empty cycling for about 4 months and the last 6 has only had 4 zebrasomas tangs in it.

I utilized live sand from a bag, and about 50 LBs of ocean rock, and some real ocean sand as well.

I recently(1 Week ago) added 4 more fish as they were out of QT.

I have 8 other fish ready to go as well. However I do not want to overload my system too fast. Does the bacteria grow only to the bioload available? Or how large is the buffer between safe and disaster? Haha

Any suggestions??

brandon429 · Sep 19, 2024

Excellent question.

New cycling science: you can add the full degree of bioload your tank can carry without ammonia control fail because you have enough surface area and bacteria and they can't be starved inside an aquarium, ever. Disease will be your limiting factor, if applicable, it can't be a cycle risk ever.

Bacteria were seated permanently into the system and populations aren't downgraded when fish are removed

You can add them back after five years fallow, and a seneye machine will show zero cycling ability lost

Old cycling science: if you don't add slowly you'll overcome the bio filter and kill everything.

You pick

Handy ways to vet the info above:

1. New cycling science has many work threads using actual reef tanks to show proofs. Here's one thread on it, and your question was covered as well prior.

Updated cycling science trends in 2023

This thread is intended to discuss current trends in reef tank cycling and to predict + track changes in reef tank cycling science compared to prior years of observation *Post any cycle challenge from any reef board on the internet for a quick alignment. cycles do not stall, starve or take 3...

www.reef2reef.com

2. To show old cycling science as true, any reader can simply link one single example of a failed starved cycle that couldn't carry fish that they found in searches. Be sure to absolutely rule out disease kills and acclimating issues from any losses found, make sure any stated API ammonia proofs for the failed cycle is a different test kit color than normal reefs show on seneye (nobody can decide what is danger level and what's the level we ignore and count as zero/ safe)

That's one example requested, among millions of search returns... which seems truer?

TangLvr · Sep 19, 2024

brandon429 said:
Excellent question.

New cycling science: you can add the full degree of bioload your tank can carry without ammonia control fail because you have enough surface area and bacteria and they can't be starved inside an aquarium, ever. Disease will be your limiting factor, if applicable, it can't be a cycle risk ever.

Bacteria were seated permanently into the system and populations aren't downgraded when fish are removed

You can add them back after five years fallow, and a seneye machine will show zero cycling ability lost

Old cycling science: if you don't add slowly you'll overcome the bio filter and kill everything.

You pick

Handy ways to vet the info above:

1. New cycling science has many work threads using actual reef tanks to show proofs. Here's one thread on it, and your question was covered as well prior.

Updated cycling science trends in 2023

This thread is intended to discuss current trends in reef tank cycling and to predict + track changes in reef tank cycling science compared to prior years of observation *Post any cycle challenge from any reef board on the internet for a quick alignment. cycles do not stall, starve or take 3...

www.reef2reef.com

2. To show old cycling science as true, any reader can simply link one single example of a failed starved cycle that couldn't carry fish that they found in searches. Be sure to absolutely rule out disease kills and acclimating issues from any losses found, make sure any stated API ammonia proofs for the failed cycle is a different test kit color than normal reefs show on seneye (nobody can decide what is danger level and what's the level we ignore and count as zero/ safe)

That's one example requested, among millions of search returns... which seems truer?

Thank you so much for the quick response! I read through your thread as well. Just to clarify, you believe I can throw those boys in right now lol?

brandon429 · Sep 19, 2024

heck yes I'm certain. yours is not a tough challenge either, you've had fish + daily feed going on the whole time, that keeps the cycle locked.

where I would seem 1000 crazy and still hold the same course would be if you were totally fallow, not one iota of feed, for several months. then the crowd would have welled up at the claim he he

for sure 100% safe. usually I need to see a pic of a tank to discern surface area, but not in this case.

any 220 G tank that can keep 4 tangs and daily feed alive for months already has plenty of surface area, no degree of common fish addition will harm it whatsoever. 220 is so much dilution that I honestly believe your tank wouldnt crash even if it was low on live rock surface area, which I've never seen here in our work examples.

TangLvr · Sep 19, 2024

brandon429 said:
heck yes I'm certain. yours is not a tough challenge either, you've had fish + daily feed going on the whole time, that keeps the cycle locked.

where I would seem 1000 crazy and still hold the same course would be if you were totally fallow, not one iota of feed, for several months. then the crowd would have welled up at the claim he he

for sure 100% safe. usually I need to see a pic of a tank to discern surface area, but not in this case.

any 220 G tank that can keep 4 tangs and daily feed alive for months already has plenty of surface area, no degree of common fish addition will harm it whatsoever. 220 is so much dilution that I honestly believe your tank wouldnt crash even if it was low on live rock surface area, which I've never seen here in our work examples.

Thank you! Just wanted to make sure the 8 fish wouldn’t cause an issue! Here is a pic!