Request for a study: origins of the common cycling chart
- Thread starter brandon429
- Start date
- Tagged users None
HomebroodExotics
Well-Known Member
Consider the entire area in the tank that remain uncolonized. Just because you put one rock with a colony of bacteria in a 1000 gallon tank doesn’t mean it’s ready for the sharks and rays yet.
OP
OP
want to keep a side focus going as we get into the very very nuanced chemistry details of cycling:
readers simply want a date they can start reefing. that's not an open-ended wait, it's a predetermined date already known for any possible reefing arrangement someone could fathom. updated cycling science can tell you when a reef tank will be ready to carry bioload and never cease that ability before the tank is even built; in its concept stages we can tell you when that tank can carry a full bioload of animals.
reef convention sellers use updated cycling science to make their tanks ready on the date the convention starts, vs having to be out in the parking lot 3 weeks early dosing ammonia to hopefully be ready by the Friday in question (and then packing up and heading home, failing to make the convention on time with their wares, if said api kit didn't read hard yellow zero)
the counter balance to the claims unfurling here is that all along we're producing ready reefs, tank transfers, new starts with bioload in place, rip cleans, all with very specific start dates and no form of testing whatsoever and that all their animals live perfectly and in fact look better after our job then they did before our job. Ive already worked 5 new ones today alone since 9 am on the site
this is why I love reef2reef the work jobs are fast, never ending, constant. other forums are a molasses in january slog of 21 month old posts and no recent updates.
there are ways to test statements given here: what happens if we try to apply them in other people's reef tanks...live or die, better or worse/true consequences or true benefits are what's going on in the work threads. this here is more of a theory thread
out in the general forum and new tanks forum, life or death, improvement or setback is on the line for charting. find those threads, get in some, give some advice- be specific in your stated compliance dates -and see what happens.
fifteenth marker between new and old cycling science:
old cycling science is always open-ended regarding a completion or a compliance date for a given set of actions or requested outcome. they relay things they've heard from others but haven't tested much themselves in other people's tanks, so to be safe we've got to be nonspecific about action dates. got to have an out in case the prediction didn't hold.
new cycling science is calendar-specific for every job involving a cycle establishment or cycle control, because we're quite sure, not hesitant, we don't need outs/they don't happen/and have already seen the job in question twelve hundred times in someone else's tank.
readers simply want a date they can start reefing. that's not an open-ended wait, it's a predetermined date already known for any possible reefing arrangement someone could fathom. updated cycling science can tell you when a reef tank will be ready to carry bioload and never cease that ability before the tank is even built; in its concept stages we can tell you when that tank can carry a full bioload of animals.
reef convention sellers use updated cycling science to make their tanks ready on the date the convention starts, vs having to be out in the parking lot 3 weeks early dosing ammonia to hopefully be ready by the Friday in question (and then packing up and heading home, failing to make the convention on time with their wares, if said api kit didn't read hard yellow zero)
the counter balance to the claims unfurling here is that all along we're producing ready reefs, tank transfers, new starts with bioload in place, rip cleans, all with very specific start dates and no form of testing whatsoever and that all their animals live perfectly and in fact look better after our job then they did before our job. Ive already worked 5 new ones today alone since 9 am on the site
this is why I love reef2reef the work jobs are fast, never ending, constant. other forums are a molasses in january slog of 21 month old posts and no recent updates.
there are ways to test statements given here: what happens if we try to apply them in other people's reef tanks...live or die, better or worse/true consequences or true benefits are what's going on in the work threads. this here is more of a theory thread
out in the general forum and new tanks forum, life or death, improvement or setback is on the line for charting. find those threads, get in some, give some advice- be specific in your stated compliance dates -and see what happens.
fifteenth marker between new and old cycling science:
old cycling science is always open-ended regarding a completion or a compliance date for a given set of actions or requested outcome. they relay things they've heard from others but haven't tested much themselves in other people's tanks, so to be safe we've got to be nonspecific about action dates. got to have an out in case the prediction didn't hold.
new cycling science is calendar-specific for every job involving a cycle establishment or cycle control, because we're quite sure, not hesitant, we don't need outs/they don't happen/and have already seen the job in question twelve hundred times in someone else's tank.
Last edited:
Does silica playsand count? Lol
Attachments
OP
OP
if that's your reef that is super mega sharp. full colony corals, looks aged and matured several years, not a spot of invasion I can see, I've never seen your reef that I can recall really very pro.
Well thank you. That one was probably 11 years ago, just before I realised none of us actually know for certain, what we are doing, lol. Here’s my current tank;
Attachments
MnFish1
10K Club member
IN general - I think this is the case. However, IMHO, added bacteria does allow a different type of 'cycling' - pick your word/definition than 30 years ago. So in a sense 'Nature' (in the aquarium has changed. But in reality, just like 'QT', many people have multiple definitions yet they all call it cycled (which I think is a mistake, and I think is, in part, your point?)
MnFish1
10K Club member
MnFish1
10K Club member
By the way - in the 'old days' - we would buy base rock (with 'nothing' on it that had been sitting in a vat with heated, oxygenated water). Then - it was customary to order live rock directly from the reef - usually from Florida, or the carribean. That was then shipped overnight - with all of the living things sitting in wet newspaper. When added to the tank, the die off of these 'hitchhikers' that did not make it often caused significant ammonia swings and significant problem - which is what lead IMHO to the recommendations you call 'old cycling science'. My guess is that the current shipping methods for live rock results in much fewer problems such as this - but I do not think I would just assume because I put in rock from the ocean that it could support a full bio load of ish on day one. However, in transferring rock from one tank to another - in general - that rock stays underwater, there is far less die off and likely less chance for spiking issues.
MnFish1
10K Club member
I have a little disagreement here. If you look at my experiment on whether there is bacteria (nitrifies) in a tank only to the point of ammonia production - you will see that taking rock from one tank and putting it in another - with or without photosynthetic organisms did not process 2 ppm ammonia on day 1. However, after a couple days, and the ammonia was 0 - and thereafter the tank could easily process 2ppm ammonia in 24 hours. Thus - there must have been some 'ramp-up' of bacteria due to the initial presence of a higher bio load.One aspect of cycling science I’m positive about is how all the reading is centered around # of bacterial cells to get readiness. you can sell and bottle bacteria…it helps to focus on it
Hyper focus on bac, low to no focus on how their real estate works leads to doubt and purchases and redundancy just to be safe am seeing
Our hobby is nearly devoid of discussion on surface area true dynamics and we get a LOT of jobs ran in unique ways using rules that govern surface area controls
for example, old cycling science on surface area rules: *all* bacteria in a system are inherently linked to ammonia control stability. Removal of any bacteria leads to system instability if a close tipping point is exceeded and these # of cells must be replaced before the crash. Must must replace lost colonies or a crash is a real risk
new cycling science on surface area: I’ve never seen a reef display using so little rock surface area that carrying its bioload was a concern, even with negative aquascape approaches. —> removing surface area surrounding the core contact area has a 0% impact on stability, opposite of what old cycling science said. The risk is in the waste upwell of detritus and mixed bacterial states of decay as complexed to waste organics: there is no risk from the removal of a massive amount of bacterial cells in a system if you do it cloudlessly. Don’t kick up detritus waste clouds and you’ll never recycle your reef display during moves, upgrades, or bed swaps and removals
Any rip cleaner knows this to be true.
application of core surface area rules where bad science can kill someone’s reef: instant removal of a giant repository of sand from the flow path of a reef tank. A five gallon bucket half full of sand as a remote dsb is innumerable # of bac cells situated and active in the system. Instantly robbing the system of one trillion bacterial cells should cause instability, but it never does
we do bulk removal of cycling bacteria across jobs and I *never* have them add the bacteria back from a bottle:
Removing remote deep sand bed
I setup a removable deep sand bed in my sump 9 months ago but now I’d like to remove it to give me more room in the sump. What do you think the impact to tank chemistry might be and how to mitigate any negatives?www.reef2reef.com
the sand rinse thread/big rip clean collection/ is roughly nine years and sixty pages of this type of work above to show it works on any reef display - we concern over controlling detritus waste upwelling, we never concern over back flushing an entire reef display using tap water.
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:
Official Sand Rinse and Tank Transfer thread
If you are reading this thread to cure a tank invasion from a link I sent you, we do not need to identify your type of invasion here we do not need you to test anything at anytime regarding nitrate, phosphate etc Above all, we do not need to see a microscope slide picture of your invasion at...
a few of those were $30K sps and clam reefs, big bucks on the line
notice how old cycling science and new/updated cycling science are completely mutually exclusive/can’t occupy the same space
everything old cycling science says can’t be done we make it a point to do, excessively. In my opinion this is evolution in cycling
where’s the training articles for new reefers discussing distinctions between new and old paradigms? Where’s the macna talks on them?
MnFish1
10K Club member
I understand what you were trying to say - but This was confusing for me (when you said it ) - can you give me a method whereby you transfer all of the sand from one tank to another - without disturbing it? On one hand it sounded like you were saying you can move the sand without disturbing it, on the other hand (and I agree with you) - rinsing sand has likely never caused a problem going from tank to tank.
Part of my point is that nothing has changed over time except for one persons definition of what is happening. There is no such thing as old vs new science, just established vs made-up definition for a actual scientific term that has been around for decades. The threads, strawman arguments, etc. are not necessary and distract from real help that can be given.
Another part of my point, is even with actual definition of a cycle from true scientists, dude refuses to change. It is like the nitrogen cycle always was fake news like a moon landing made in a Hollywood studio.
It is like we are redefining gravity to just include things that fall and not things at rest or that were in motion or come to rest. ...and stats that say that Gravity never killed anybody by some lobbyist to promote gravity.
I get that the smart folks know that all of these arguments are garbage based on the likes and PMs that I get. I get that most of them have given up on fighting all of it, also based on the PMs that I get. However, the people that need this kind of help do not know this and their success in the hobby is based on some of this advice. Knowing the difference in an ongoing process (Cycle Stage One is underway) versus done (cycled) is really important, if for nothing else so that they keep learning. There is some amount of preying on the people with less knowledge.
I am not a fan of telling people what to do over teaching them... days to wait vs education, but I can get over this as a style difference even if I think that it leads to future failure in the "catch a fish vs teach to fish" paradigm.
...as to the sand, I am not sure what to say here. Washing out sand NEVER was an issue. This might be more of a glory thing to have a thread and take credit? I don't know. I have moved many tanks and left the sand undisturbed - the $1000 tank in my signature is one of them. I moved my large tank from Missouri and mostly had to start over since had many hundreds of pounds of sand in it and the tank already weighted about 500lbs - I did save about 5g of top later sand to put on the top, as well as some bottom layer (anoix) to bury at the bottom. This worked too. It always has. All of these straw men are just stupid too, IMO. Again, nothing will change with the strawman argument or new vs. old stuff. I doubt that anybody could find anybody smart that EVER said that washing out sand would crash a tank - the only mention that I saw was on WWM where Bob (?) said that the aerobic and anaerobic zones would need to rebuilt, which is correct.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Thanks that clarifies it. I was under the opinion that you were saying moving tanks and not rinsing sand was 'ok' (and I wondered how you did it LOL) - when I changed from a 160 gallon Marineland to a Reefer, I used about 1/4 of my old sand (well rinsed) - with 3/4 new 'live sand' as recommended by my LFS - which was about 8 years or so ago.
I am glad that you did not do that 30 years ago since your tank would have crashed. Once the millennium hit, it was OK to wash sand by the grace of the cosmic calendar gods that have nothing better to do than worry about reef tanks.
There was a shop in KC that moved like 2,000 gallon tank to 10,000 gallons and they used a large dustpan to move the sand like sod in neat little squares. This made some cloud, but the sand was never mixed up. This worked for them and the got all of this work done in like 48 hours, which is not much time just for equipment with a tank that large. They did not throw it in buckets and mix it all up and otherwise totally disturb it. The had three dudes to move the dustpan with initial scooper guy, guy walking with the dustpan to the new tank and then careful layer-downer guy. They had to add a lot of new sand too.
There is a thread out there somewhere that a few of us helped a person who moved a bio cube from the family room to a bedroom and got told that they could only move it if they rinsed all of the sand. This worked, of course, since it always has. No crash. Nitrates started to rise, therefore the new thread. The guy had no idea that this rinse would disrupt the denitrification capability of his tank... or that he could have just picked up the tank and moved it with the sand in it still. This guy was ticked. I told him that it was on him for not digging in more, and he agreed, but still not happy that he got what he now saw as one-sided advice. This whole experience was claimed as a war-chest victory for the sand-washer cult since the tank did not crash.
Once the millennium hit, it was OK to wash sand by the grace of the cosmic calendar gods that have nothing better to do than worry about reef tanks.There was a shop in KC that moved like 2,000 gallon tank to 10,000 gallons and they used a large dustpan to move the sand like sod in neat little squares. This made some cloud, but the sand was never mixed up. This worked for them and the got all of this work done in like 48 hours, which is not much time just for equipment with a tank that large. They did not throw it in buckets and mix it all up and otherwise totally disturb it. The had three dudes to move the dustpan with initial scooper guy, guy walking with the dustpan to the new tank and then careful layer-downer guy. They had to add a lot of new sand too.
There is a thread out there somewhere that a few of us helped a person who moved a bio cube from the family room to a bedroom and got told that they could only move it if they rinsed all of the sand. This worked, of course, since it always has. No crash. Nitrates started to rise, therefore the new thread. The guy had no idea that this rinse would disrupt the denitrification capability of his tank... or that he could have just picked up the tank and moved it with the sand in it still. This guy was ticked. I told him that it was on him for not digging in more, and he agreed, but still not happy that he got what he now saw as one-sided advice. This whole experience was claimed as a war-chest victory for the sand-washer cult since the tank did not crash.
MnFish1
10K Club member
My sand bed was not thick. Even bare glass in some places. So my guess ia that I maybe could have gotten away without rinsing. But it was also somewhat dirtyI am glad that you did not do that 30 years ago since your tank would have crashed.
There was a shop in KC that moved like 2,000 gallon tank to 10,000 gallons and they used a large dustpan to move the sand like sod in neat little squares. This made some cloud, but the sand was never mixed up. This worked for them and the got all of this work done in like 48 hours, which is not much time just for equipment with a tank that large. They did not throw it in buckets and mix it all up and otherwise totally disturb it. The had three dudes to move the dustpan with initial scooper guy, guy walking with the dustpan to the new tank and then careful layer-downer guy. They had to add a lot of new sand too.
There is a thread out there somewhere that a few of us helped a person who moved a bio cube from the family room to a bedroom and got told that they could only move it if they rinsed all of the sand. This worked, of course, since it always has. No crash. Nitrates started to rise, therefore the new thread. The guy had no idea that this rinse would disrupt the denitrification capability of his tank... or that he could have just picked up the tank and moved it with the sand in it still. This guy was ticked. I told him that it was on him for not digging in more, and he agreed, but still not happy that he got what he now saw as one-sided advice. This whole experience was claimed as a war-chest victory for the sand-washer cult since the tank did not crash.
OP
OP
a one off example of a large tank that didn't need to rinse does not address the forty thousand variations seen in giant yearslong work threads where entrants don't necessarily disclose all details and where we're not there in person to guide a move. There is danger in running such a rinseless work thread, I recommend one is started to test the danger if any. again stated: on page one I've listed several fish kills by disturbing only sand, direct statements from both Jay and Dr. Tim stating sand disturbance can kill in some instances, so a blanket statement that rinsing simply doesn't matter only reflects staying out of work threads, vs being in several hundred. there's no feeling like killing someone's tank and having to account for it: rinsing is perfect streamlining of all reefs and removes the sole kill variable from the tank other than not covering fish/they jump out while in holding or poisoning events/chemical and physical errors. we have a system where following the order of ops absolutely streamlines outcomes and that's hard to do remotely, where variables aren't always disclosed nor detected.
there are new tank setups where the ocean direct sand was so degraded in particles that it took two weeks to settle even with the flocculant, bags of sand themselves differ in composition so the blanket statement for new sand: "it'll clear in two days" only works for the majority, not the totality, and I listed about 15 examples where new unrinsed sand was so cloudy the aquarist is directly typing they wished they'd pre rinsed the new stuff. streamlining safety outcomes for all was the goal, it's not that 100% of tanks must rinse. It's that I can run a nine year thread with perfect outcomes if they do
JDA, why not just start a rinseless tank transfer, invasion fix and upgrade thread and we watch you run it out to page 20. accept all the jobs that post, fix their invasions, prepare a list of steps to handle the sandbeds however they present. be a live-time maestro for their systems.
not rinsing gets waste upwelling and delayed uglies in a huge degree of unrinsed tank moves, it's not just crashing we're thinking of.
I have listed several distinctions here where old vs new cycling science thought has reefers take polar opposite measures. one is always spurning a purchase, an open-ended wait sometimes 90 days for something ready in ten, a standout dependence on cheap test kits to have any confidence in reefing action, and the other approach (new cycling science, trust in water bacteria still in water) is always saving money relying on bacteria in ways that aren't doubt/buy more just in case/approaches. the impacts from old and new cycling science are night and day difference in action and concept. evidence=the track records for cycling by old cycling science, the redundant wasteful purchases, extremely delayed completion dates, the confidence of the aquarist, the never-mention of disease early and fast in the tank planning, vs any new cycling science thread we can search or that will be ran today where we can track in follow up 5 months from now.
there are new tank setups where the ocean direct sand was so degraded in particles that it took two weeks to settle even with the flocculant, bags of sand themselves differ in composition so the blanket statement for new sand: "it'll clear in two days" only works for the majority, not the totality, and I listed about 15 examples where new unrinsed sand was so cloudy the aquarist is directly typing they wished they'd pre rinsed the new stuff. streamlining safety outcomes for all was the goal, it's not that 100% of tanks must rinse. It's that I can run a nine year thread with perfect outcomes if they do
JDA, why not just start a rinseless tank transfer, invasion fix and upgrade thread and we watch you run it out to page 20. accept all the jobs that post, fix their invasions, prepare a list of steps to handle the sandbeds however they present. be a live-time maestro for their systems.
not rinsing gets waste upwelling and delayed uglies in a huge degree of unrinsed tank moves, it's not just crashing we're thinking of.
I have listed several distinctions here where old vs new cycling science thought has reefers take polar opposite measures. one is always spurning a purchase, an open-ended wait sometimes 90 days for something ready in ten, a standout dependence on cheap test kits to have any confidence in reefing action, and the other approach (new cycling science, trust in water bacteria still in water) is always saving money relying on bacteria in ways that aren't doubt/buy more just in case/approaches. the impacts from old and new cycling science are night and day difference in action and concept. evidence=the track records for cycling by old cycling science, the redundant wasteful purchases, extremely delayed completion dates, the confidence of the aquarist, the never-mention of disease early and fast in the tank planning, vs any new cycling science thread we can search or that will be ran today where we can track in follow up 5 months from now.
Last edited:
OP
OP
in my opinion the strongest arguments for best procedure are not shown by someone referencing their own systems, artists always do well in their own homes and studios
show what works for others in unison, in yearslong pattern threads around a given concept, for the real win. it takes a lot of risk to accumulate pages and pages of work solely in other people's reefs and I'd like to read some threads where that's happening.
somebody start a new one, pick the concept/title it/let's see what emerges in pattern by page 20 on reefs we never get to actually see, sample or physically handle in person. the testimonies of the owners after the fact will be the deciding factor...and the after pics of the tanks.
www.reef2reef.com
sand handling, detritus-upwelled partial fish kill related only to the clouding event. one of several searchable examples.
*old cycling science had him thinking all that sand, bacteria and waste was an integral link to his system's stability, to the safety of his fish.
*updated/new cycling science knows all that sand can instantly be extracted/rinsed correctly/ and none of his fish will die because that's an excessive overage of bacteria the system tolerates, it's not an integral link at all. we'd have him extract the animals and corals first then disassemble the tank with it's inevitable clouding with no animals present. we'd have him clean it all in one pass, not partial passes, and re assemble a cloudless system and it would have skip cycled with no fish kills/on file and out to page 60 for patterning in the sand rinse thread.
show what works for others in unison, in yearslong pattern threads around a given concept, for the real win. it takes a lot of risk to accumulate pages and pages of work solely in other people's reefs and I'd like to read some threads where that's happening.
somebody start a new one, pick the concept/title it/let's see what emerges in pattern by page 20 on reefs we never get to actually see, sample or physically handle in person. the testimonies of the owners after the fact will be the deciding factor...and the after pics of the tanks.
Sand Bed
I have a stable, successful (by my standards) tank for many years. I has a dsb which may or may not be relevant to that. Seems like all I read about DSB is anecdotal. So, I will add to it. I had to excavate a small section of my sand bed for a plumbing issue. With in 12 hours, both my tangs...
www.reef2reef.com
sand handling, detritus-upwelled partial fish kill related only to the clouding event. one of several searchable examples.
*old cycling science had him thinking all that sand, bacteria and waste was an integral link to his system's stability, to the safety of his fish.
*updated/new cycling science knows all that sand can instantly be extracted/rinsed correctly/ and none of his fish will die because that's an excessive overage of bacteria the system tolerates, it's not an integral link at all. we'd have him extract the animals and corals first then disassemble the tank with it's inevitable clouding with no animals present. we'd have him clean it all in one pass, not partial passes, and re assemble a cloudless system and it would have skip cycled with no fish kills/on file and out to page 60 for patterning in the sand rinse thread.
Last edited:
MnFish1
10K Club member
I think you both make valid points. @brandon429 I think you have a reputation as the 'go to' person for these types of questions. I think it will be difficult/impossible for someone else (me or @jda) for example to have the thread you as asking for in a reasonable amount of time.in my opinion the strongest arguments for best procedure are not shown by someone referencing their own systems, artists always do well in their own homes and studios
show what works for others in unison, in yearslong pattern threads around a given concept, for the real win. it takes a lot of risk to accumulate pages and pages of work solely in other people's reefs and I'd like to read some threads where that's happening.
somebody start a new one, pick the concept/title it/let's see what emerges in pattern by page 20 on reefs we never get to actually see, sample or physically handle in person. the testimonies of the owners after the fact will be the deciding factor...and the after pics of the tanks.
Sand Bed
I have a stable, successful (by my standards) tank for many years. I has a dsb which may or may not be relevant to that. Seems like all I read about DSB is anecdotal. So, I will add to it. I had to excavate a small section of my sand bed for a plumbing issue. With in 12 hours, both my tangs...
sand handling, detritus-upwelled partial fish kill related only to the clouding event. one of several searchable examples.
You make some valid points - as does JDA. However if one searches R2R for cycling advice, your name pops up so therefore will always have more views since you've posted so many times about these issues.
OP
OP
For the next five days on all new jobs, I’ll make a distinction between new vs old cycling science in the job and link them here for study. We can see if advices and predicted outcomes are all the same when done. We can review impacts to the aquarist based on which mutually-exclusive approach they choose to adopt. We need a good five or ten brand new ones to inspect / coming up, first one almost set.
a job might be: is my cycle done, should I do something to make it better or safer
when can I start using this new tank/add stock
an invasion fix
a tank move or relocation work/guide request
anything having to do with cycle test stated levels
a job might be: is my cycle done, should I do something to make it better or safer
when can I start using this new tank/add stock
an invasion fix
a tank move or relocation work/guide request
anything having to do with cycle test stated levels
Last edited:
Similar threads
