Request for a study: origins of the common cycling chart

[brandon429]

New to reefing, did I skip the cycling process?

So about 2 weeks ago I setup my first saltwater tank, a fluval evo 13.5g. I put in some sand and saltwater and let it run for about a week and a half. I purchased some live rock from an existing aquarium and added it to my tank and it's been 4 days and all my parameters are perfect, ph of 8...

www.reef2reef.com

I cannot understand the constant repeating doubt we as pros teach new reefers. We're assuming not one time in history has a non digital test kit misled someone into thinking their cycle is stalled? Can't we at least let them know if they're going to add ammonia to a known cycled set of rocks, api might show them .25 and that still means cycled?

Since MN, T et al here has shown us the origins of the cycling chart I figure let's just continue with new cycling jobs in analysis. Nobody reading here can link one time a live rock transfer failed due to lack of bacteria, though we train others as if it ever has

teaching fear in something that's certain is old cycling science

 

[Dan_P]

New to reefing, did I skip the cycling process?

So about 2 weeks ago I setup my first saltwater tank, a fluval evo 13.5g. I put in some sand and saltwater and let it run for about a week and a half. I purchased some live rock from an existing aquarium and added it to my tank and it's been 4 days and all my parameters are perfect, ph of 8...

www.reef2reef.com

See how the struggle continues?

I'm stumped. For T to write what he wrote is like if i showed up to a drum tutorial lesson at guitar center from Lars Urlrich and he was struggling with paradiddles

I cannot understand the constant repeating doubt we as pros teach new reefers. We're assuming not one time in history has a non digital test kit misled someone into thinking their cycle is stalled? Can't we at least let them know if they're going to add ammonia to a known cycled set of rocks, api might show them .25 and that still means cycled?

Since MN, T et al here has shown us the origins of the cycling chart I figure let's just continue with new cycling jobs in analysis. Nobody reading here can link one time a live rock transfer failed due to lack of bacteria, though we train others as if it ever has

teaching fear by word of mouth is old cycling science even if it's chemistry Lars Urlrich doing it/ friendly poke.

I understand your frustration.

The assumption we are debating is that a live rock always has a ammonia consuming capability, but the doubt is more around whether the live rock has sufficient ammonia consuming capability. This is an important consideration given the current trend of rapidly overstocking an aquarium. Will the live rock ammonia consuming capability handle a quick rise in ammonia production. Live rocks are not all alike nor do we know how live rock was handled since it was harvested. The prudent thing to do is dose a small amount of ammonia to the system and observe the ammonia reduction rate.

 

[brandon429]

Well said. I think in the end we want what’s safe for marine animals for sure

I can’t understand how we keep omitting disease preps as part of the actual cycle training. That’s where fish loss happens in new tanks, it’s not during the cycle process. The Lars analogy was bad I know T does not think the cycle is dead but was showing how to verify

couldn’t we at least get an insert about nh4 vs 3, and how in 90% of cases nh4 will show some residual

could we get possibly an assurance the cycle is indeed done and reliable, they build entire trade shows off this kind of transfer, but to practice ammonia assessment let’s run a test anyway to see if levels come back in the predicted ranges

all the op got was the 1998 advice and the new advice was fully omitted, I struggled to understand why new information is withheld in teaching. We cannot progress cycle science if people are simply taught whatever api says is accurate in all cases, that’s what the op will garner from the info if his test comes back greenish

he will then purchase 1-3 bottles of bacteria until it comes back yellow

even if nobody in the chem forum agrees that live rock skip cycles work all the time, they’ve got to start relaying disease preps, it’s the prudent thing to do based on clear standout data

we as cycle opiners are contributing to the bucket loads of fish being lost to delayed onset disease by seeing Jay’s daily work in the matter, ignoring it, then promulgating him getting more work by weighing every cycle on what api says.

 

[Garf]

omitting disease preps

So, you’ll tell everyone who buys liverock, they gotta wait 76 days or so then. Excellent, no more liverock cycle threads.

 

[brandon429]

Old cycling science in this example: your reef is safe for fish when you've verified the system processes two ppm ammonia in 24 hours

Updated cycling science: live rock transfers don't need verification. Your tank is safe for fish when the stickies in the disease forum have been applied to your instantly aged reef tank.

 

[jda]

old cycling science on surface area and bacteria: of course you can’t rinse your display sandbed out with tap water. You’ll kill the whole setup.


new cycling science: here’s three hundred jobs of rinsing the sandbed in reef displays, any tank someone wants to post, in tap water:

I thought about this a lot last night...

There are people who did, and still do, recommend that tanks be moved without disturbing the sandbed, if possible. Nothing old or new here. The might say that it interrupts the cycle. It does - stage 3 where if you need anaerobic bacteria to turn no3 into N gas. The establishment of the oxic and anoxic zones can take a year, or so. Some might wish to preserve this. This is good advice for many to follow.

You could always rinse your sand and not crash a tank. Nothing new or old here, either. The oxic and anoxic zones would need to repopulate and part of the cycle was disrupted. This was also good advice if you could not preserve your old sand bed.

Is this where this misunderstanding came from? Did somebody confuse parts of the cycle that they did not understand (step 3) with parts that they did (step 1)?

The definition of cycle and the misremembering of advice (maybe?) is the only difference here... not anything to do with science. Now, we seem to have a strawman setup for a problem that does not need solved based on not understanding the whole nitrogen cycle and where different pieces fit in.

Just as it has ALWAYS been, you can leave your sand alone, or you can wash it (or replace it). None of these are tank crashers. Some have set a tank back more than others. There is nothing old or new here - same things all along.

This is just an argument that needs not to be made, nor any credit taken for something that was never going to happen.

Does anybody have a real source from smart people saying that starting over with new sand (rinse or new) would crash a tank? I have never seen this, but only it since the early 1990s.

@Lasse - I totally understand why it feels meaningless to debate some of this, even if it is right to do so.

 

[jda]

Old cycling science in this example: your reef is safe for fish when you've verified the system processes two ppm ammonia in 24 hours

Updated cycling science: live rock transfers don't need verification. Your tank is safe for fish when the stickies in the disease forum have been applied to your instantly aged reef tank.

This is not true either... in entirety. Even back in the early 1990s, your tank was safe for fish as soon as live rock was cured and had no more rot and die off - sometimes you did this yourself and sometimes the store/shop did it. Nobody smart put ammonia into tanks with live rock in them - there was NEVER any need. It takes time for live rock to age a reef tank, even if it can process some fish waste nearly immediately.

Let's please don't mix skip rock ammonia add starts to ones that use rock. Apples to Volkswagens. This is one of the worst strawmen in the whole thread.

In all seriousness, and I hope that this assimilates, anybody who is telling people to get fresh live rock and then go fallow has some advice to get carbon and building blocks to the microfauna on those rocks while there are no fish. I am talking about the whole entirety of the creatures and not just Step 1 cycling bacteria. Ammonium and some aminos would be a good start - I would skip things like phyto or other particulate coral food since the biom is not complete and these might be harder to process in the beginning with just rocks. If you want to do this, then CUC needs to come in pretty early or you need to start the clock over and not all of these can live on rock stuff alone, so maybe some flake food too.

 

[jda]

Also, I would caution any advice with absolute days or numbers concerning live rock. Some rock is actually live. Some rock is just wet. Some rock will have die off and could be a massive ammonia contributor. I think this was @Dan_P point above. Most probably has some surface film bacteria on it that can multiply to satisfy Stage 1 of the cycle, but not all will. Again, best to teach and explain rather than try and come up with absolute recommendations.

Without fish or inverts, it is always safe to cure live rock in the tank. It might not be wanted if a massive amount of P will bind the rocks/sand full of po4 and you have to deal with a massive amount of no3 before Step 3 of the cycle starts to work. External curing is never a bad idea, but not doing so will not crash a tank.

 

[brandon429]

I don't believe you can run a tank transfer thread that doesn't rinse sand and get the results we get. in order to know, you'd have to actually make and run a thread for nine years. it's not the same to skip that accountability, then just claim it would work. thats the safe zone

I ran a few tank transfers rinseless at nano-reef.com and got stung, horribly stung by complete wipeouts. so we began doing the polar opposite and we got the results on file.

mixed states of decay that nobody can predict add variability and tank loss when they're upwelled in the presence of delicate marine animals, that's my inference from the work on file.

on page one of the sr thread I've listed 10 or so direct readable examples of disturbing sand and it killing all their fish. Jay, and Dr. Tim state in the threads that disturbing sand can kill fish, Im taking that to mean they've actually done the work and were relaying that risk

I agree it may not have happened in your own tank though.

 

[jda]

You are making stuff up, again. Nobody said anything about disturbing sand. I specifically said undisturbed sand. Disturbing sand is a bad idea - nobody probably ever has, and never should, recommend doing this.

Undisturbed != disturbed. They are different words.

Seriously - do you not see the difference in what people type, or do you see it and just plow ahead anyway?

 

[Dan_P]

Also, I would caution any advice with absolute days or numbers concerning live rock. Some rock is actually live. Some rock is just wet. Some rock will have die off and could be a massive ammonia contributor. I think this was @Dan_P point above. Most probably has some surface film bacteria on it that can multiply to satisfy Stage 1 of the cycle, but not all will. Again, best to teach and explain rather than try and come up with absolute recommendations.

Without fish or inverts, it is always safe to cure live rock in the tank. It might not be wanted if a massive amount of P will bind the rocks/sand full of po4 and you have to deal with a massive amount of no3 before Step 3 of the cycle starts to work. External curing is never a bad idea, but not doing so will not crash a tank.

I recently obtained results from a model aquaria study that I don’t understand yet, but makes me wonder about the resilience of nitrifying bacteria in a sand bed. I observed (replicated) the near disappearance of the nitrifying bacteria in aquaria receiving small water changes compared to aquaria receiving 100% water changes. Water change was the only water purification in this experiment. I don’t know how to interpret this yet. The point is that messing up a nitrifying biofilm in a sand bed might not be difficult. Maybe live rock nitrifying bacteria can be disrupted.

 

[jda]

I have no doubt that your sand rinsing thread has worked fine. There is no reason that it should not. There was no reason in the past (old science) and also no reason in the present (new science). The same things that happened years ago happen today. Even 30 years ago, there were tanks that were too big to move without disturbing the sand so they rinsed it out*.

That does not mean that moving a tank without disturbing the sand also does not work. It always has, and always will.

* to be fair, there was a period of a few years where most big-box stores had southdown sand for a few dollars for 40 lbs as play sand (those were the days). People during this timeframe would replace sand since it was so cheap, but this is a small window in time compared to the many who just cleaned their old sand and moved on. Raise your hand if you had Southdown sand in your tank!

 

[jda]

I recently obtained results from a model aquaria study that I don’t understand yet, but makes me wonder about the resilience of nitrifying bacteria in a sand bed. I observed (replicated) the near disappearance of the nitrifying bacteria in aquaria receiving small water changes compared to aquaria receiving 100% water changes. Water change was the only water purification in this experiment. I don’t know how to interpret this yet. The point is that messing up a nitrifying biofilm in a sand bed might not be difficult. Maybe live rock nitrifying bacteria can be disrupted.

Sand beds have always been hard since the distance between oxic and anoxic zones is so small. Too many sand sifters has been shown to change denitrifying rates. For example a single cucumber to clean the sand in my 24x96 footprint makes no dent, but in a biocube could disturb too much. Lasse's new research into the need for DOC is interesting too where it appears that sand needs to be completely established and undisturbed for DOC production and use in the sand to be efficient. Since the sand it at the mercy of tank inhabitants, I could see how fluctuations could happen. It could also be hard to study in isolation without natural levels of DOC available.

There is more on live rock that filters the tank than bacteria. Algae, microfauna, etc. all use up nh4. I have little doubt that colonies of bacteria can dwindle in the absence of supply, but also that they can rebound quickly if they need to. Rock is so hard since what I consider live rock came from the ocean and is full of that microfauna, or is long established with countless life, whereas some stores and folks put some Marco rock in water for a few weeks and consider it live.

 

[Dan_P]

Sand beds have always been hard since the distance between oxic and anoxic zones is so small. Too many sand sifters has been shown to change denitrifying rates. For example a single cucumber to clean the sand in my 24x96 footprint makes no dent, but in a biocube could disturb too much. Lasse's new research into the need for DOC is interesting too where it appears that sand needs to be completely established and undisturbed for DOC production and use in the sand to be efficient. Since the sand it at the mercy of tank inhabitants, I could see how fluctuations could happen. It could also be hard to study in isolation without natural levels of DOC available.

I thought Lasse’s work concerned denitrification, the loss of nitrate. I was talking about loss of nitrification capability which is not DOC dependent and needs oxygen (disturbance would be good).

 

[jda]

I am not sure what value sand has for nitrification, except on the tippy tip surface. With the short lifespan of nh4 nor no2, it seems that in a mature biome, other places or things would consume or convert long before it could settle into the sand even a little bit below the surface. If we are just talking about the immediate surface, then that changes constantly in a dynamic tank if you have good flow, critters, fish that move the sand around some.

Sorry for getting off track with stage 3 there for a bit. This is where my mind goes with sand since it is the only function in the N cycle that I need it for (along with being a po4 buffer and home to microfauna to eat disease tomonts, which has nothing to do with N cycle).

 

[Lasse]

I thought Lasse’s work concerned denitrification, the loss of nitrate. I was talking about loss of nitrification capability which is not DOC dependent and needs oxygen (disturbance would be good).

Yes but if you should oxygenate a sand layer - it must be moving all the time or use the old bottom filter method where you force oxygenated water further down in the sand. In my reverse flow DSB - I´m rather sure that I have nitrification in the bottom layers because I force oxygen rich water down under the sand bed and up,

Sincerely Lasse

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Reading this thread has been interesting, but it has created a realization in myself.
I started keeping marine tanks in college in 1985. I had MTS even back then, eleven tanks in small off campus apartment. I used under gravel filters with powerheads that gave way to modified 10 gallon sumps with bioballs appropriated from water treatment.
Words I have read in this thread I haven’t heard in a while... One's like Denitrifying, Anaerobic, Nitrobacteria. These where pretty common terms and maybe goals (if you want to use that term) in 1985. They seem to be pretty absent now a days in chatter among the forums.
I feel there is so much talked about "getting you tank going" and less about keeping it going. I agree with (@jda) that a full cycle is not complete, just by adding established media. I also agree you maybe able to "skip" (@brandon429) Part 1 (@Lasse), but the cycle is far from complete.
With statistics (@Bulk Reef Supply) that point to the average age of a marine tank is six months, so many new hobbyists will never complete their cycle. Yes, most will be able to keep some fish or corals alive for a bit, but then as the tank continues to mature, something will happen that will end up with the hobbyist in frustration and ultimately the end of the tank.
There are very few older aquarist on the forum (as in having an established tank) comparatively to new hobbyists. I can see that threads similar to this can be very frustrating even if they are not involved. Unless your @Paul B who does what he does and smiles while he does it.
So one should decide why one is here. Am I here to further the hobby? Am I here to unload on someone or an idea, because I do not agree or had a bad day? We should be aware of our constructive criticism to be sure it is constructive.

 

[brandon429]

(@brandon429) Part 1 (@Lasse), but the cycle is far from complete.

what are the remaining steps when transferring live rock from one tank to another

what did that transfer strip from the already done live rocks> I'm 20 years into guiding skip cycle live rock transfers online and have never seen any remaining steps left to wait on/elucidate

I'm glad you posted this is great discourse

 

[LRT]

Nitrification is not only a thing for newly started aquaria - its also very important in old established aquarium. In my own aquarium - I can switch on and off my nitrate reduction (probably denitrification in my case) with help of DOC dosing below my reversed flow DSB. In a test that I run for the moment - I have shout off my DOC dosing the last couple of days and I following both NO2 and NO3 day for day with Hanna Checkers. Since yesterday at this time (11:30 local time) my nitrification process has process around 1.3 mg NH4 into NO3 without any NO2 build up. NO3 has increase with 4.6 mg/L NO3 since yesterday - it means that at least 1.3 mg/L NH4 is converted. My system has during these 24 hours produced at least 1.3 mg NH4/L (as demonstrated in NO3 increase).

The real production of NH4 during this time is probably much, much larger as some has gone to my corals, algae and other photosynthetic organism, some has been reduced by bacterial processes that not demand DOC and some has been aerated out as NH3 through my skimmer.

My aquarium is today around 7 years old.

Red - stop dosing DOC

NO2

NO3

Sincerely Lasse

Thank you for this explanation and input @Lasse it's great to see you sir!

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

(@brandon429) Part 1 (@Lasse), but the cycle is far from complete.

what are the remaining steps when transferring live rock from one tank to another

what did that transfer strip from the already done live rocks> I'm 20 years into guiding skip cycle live rock transfers online and have never seen any remaining steps left to wait on/elucidate

I'm glad you posted this is great discourse

I was more implying about new tanks, but you can use it also with a transfer. You are not stripping anything from established live rock ( maybe some anaerobic denitrifying bacteria because of new or different flow). I use live rock all the time, either established or direct from the ocean.
On any new surface in your tank there will be a competition for biome ( I call it the Oklahoma land rush of the Aquarium). For those non American history buffs, it was when settlers raced out to claim their stake in the west, sometimes by competitive and nefarious means. But until you reestablish the biome and create your denitrifying bacteria population, I feel you do not have a complete cycle.