Open challenge for the hobby: prove that fish-in cycles harm fish.

[Derrick0580]

I mean ATM does it on national television…set up a tank, fill with water and fish all in one afternoon!

 

[Dr. Reef]

I mean ATM does it on national television…set up a tank, fill with water and fish all in one afternoon!

They have their own brand of bacteria. I tested it in my study and they all work and keep ammonia at bay till true nitrifying bacteria gets hold of your tank.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I disagree with that statement just on basis on my study and personal experience on a daily basis.
As i said before I sell qted fish online. been doing so for 5 years commercially now.
I have 4 x 50 gal tanks with a sump as 1 system. a total of 200-250 gal of water in 1 system and i have 40 systems like that. Anyways, when we have ich or velvet in a system, we dont have time to wait 75 days to reuse the system.
We take these fish out and put them in temp hospital tanks and run copper there.
While we bleach the system and drain and dry it over 24 hrs and re set it with barely a dusting of new sand and new bio creamic media and fill it up with water and dose 5-10 x fritz turbostart 900 and and dump many fish in there and likely more than a normal 125 gal tank for sure.
Never had 1 die on me. If bio load is heavier to my taste i keep dosing bacteria for 3-5 days.

If some of you remember the TV show Tanked. They used to setup a new tank and put full load of fish in clients tanks right after setup. They have their own brand of bacteria they used to sell and use themselves. I tested that bottle as well in my study.

We have to undertand what is a cycle and what do we mean by it. All you are doing is giving tank enough time to have beneficial bacteri to colonize for it to be able to handle the ammonia being produced.
There are many ways to accomplish that.
Bottle bacteria is one of them. You are dosing enough bacteria in your tank that will colonize and immediately start converting ammonia and nitrotes to nitrates.
Or you can keep doing water changes daily like in qt tanks to keep ammonia from harming fish.
End of the day you just need to keep ammonia out of the tank. how ever you do it is your choice. But all these methods work and you can even use ammonia sludge remover bacteria till nitrifying bacteria gets hold of it.

I crashed a 10 gallon tank with one fish in it by cleaning it out and then using bottled bac. Your millage may vary. I wouldn’t tell anyone it’ll work every time. People can’t even do an api test correctly.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I mean ATM does it on national television…set up a tank, fill with water and fish all in one afternoon!

They don’t have to show the tank after a couple months either.

 

[brandon429]

That lines up well with aquabiomics posts. The residents at month 38 aren’t the same for example as ones from the initial start, though a calibrated seneye on any decent cycling bacteria would show ammonia controlled pretty much from day one, onward.


alternation of generations, and we never care the entire time the work got done.

which explains every bottle bac cycle I’ve ever seen in a thread plus every convention skip cycle setup like the Fritz booth at aquashella packed in happy clowns/ small nano and they were literally perfect in every way, packed. It was an effective demo of their product. Also rare in this thread, someone else who saw the exact same convention skip cycle bottle bac load demo.


controlling a couple clownfish in a 65 gallon tank is a cakewalk even for the slowest mixes, I’ll bet.

 

[brandon429]

I find it amazing that only through anecdote we’ve made the stronger case that fish in cycling with bottle bac isn’t that controversial, and works.


very recently, anyone claiming this was outcast


how’d we arrive back so quick heh.


The surprising part will be the first measure posted showing a convincing, nh3 proofed case of ammonia noncontrol in a full sized display using the common surface area people use and the bacteria they add + the time they wait, on average ten days.



I‘m honestly not convinced of any counter claims.

I’ve been waiting eighteen pages for one single digital measure of nh3 noncontrol in a cycling attempt. the title request has not been fulfilled in any convincing way, by any pattern on file.


so this means on page thirty, when someone gets really really mad at the title and posts some flame before reading: to you I say thank you for joining our soon to be massive proof thread of happy, swimming fish.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I find it amazing that only through anecdote we’ve made the stronger case that fish in cycling with bottle bac isn’t that controversial, and works.


very recently, anyone claiming this was outcast


how’d we arrive back so quick heh.


The surprising part will be the first measure posted showing a convincing, nh3 proofed case of ammonia noncontrol in a full sized display using the common surface area people use and the bacteria they add + the time they wait, on average ten days.



I‘m honestly not convinced of any counter claims.

I’ve been waiting eighteen pages for one single digital measure of nh3 noncontrol in a cycling attempt. the title request has not been fulfilled in any convincing way, by any pattern on file.


so this means on page thirty, when someone gets really really mad at the title and posts some flame before reading: to you I say thank you for joining our soon to be massive proof thread of happy, swimming fish.

Here we go with the threads being proof. I love how only your anecdotes and the anecdotes you approve of are the hard facts. Your threads are proof. Everyone else's threads are trolling. Killing their fish to troll you. That's hard-core.

 

[rtparty]

The second Tanked is brought into this...you know it's heading the wrong way. No one should follow anything those goons do. They were a major black eye for the hobby

 

[Cell]

technically a 5 year old can do an experiment - but there are lots of 50 year olds that have no clue how to do one. Not sure about your point either

My point is nobody on this forum is an arbiter of science. If you weren't following along, it wasn't directed towards you. Not sure why you feel compelled to comment if you don't understand the point and don't really care.

 

[Cell]

That said, I dont like the implication that "work threads" (regardless of how large) are in any way scientific or peer reviewed. They are not. Anecdotal evidence has its place, but passing it off as scientific is detrimental to the hobby.

Tell me then, what does "scientific" mean?

 

[Cell]

Here we go with the threads being proof. I love how only your anecdotes and the anecdotes you approve of are the hard facts. Your threads are proof. Everyone else's threads are trolling. Killing their fish to troll you. That's hard-core.

At some point when something is repeatable time and time again with the same result, it stops being anecdotal. You don't always need to know the why or the exact mechanics. You do it once or twice, that's anecdotal. You do it 100 times, it's quite a bit more convincing.

 

[brandon429]

Dr. Reef pretty much came in and mic dropped the issue isn't that right Cell

For 18 pages I'm asking for digital measures over and over, to no avail, and he's like: you didn't recall the five seneyes experiment ran with controls and proofing calibrations etc?

Anyone bickering still about the functionality of bottle bac simply values no form of pattern or proof, and we certainly still aren't seeing any counter measures from them

It's why I've said nobody has made a convincing counter case yet. Only personal jibes are all we have for the null claim. All we see in bottle bac testing is a bunch of passing scores, haters without any data.

If peer reviewed formal works ran this hobby, we wouldn't have pico reefs, peroxide dosing and many other handy tricks.

 

[92Miata]

do it bro, show us how its done. Thats literally what most of us are asking for. Prove it yourself instead of begging people who you will ignore anyway..

Do what? We've done it thousands and thousands and thousands of times. We've done it in public aquariums for 50 years. We've done it in universities just as long. We've done it in hobby aquariums for 20 years.

Put bacteria in, put fish in, observe ammonia levels (there never are any). Over and over and over again. It works.


This is more ridiculous than "LEDS can't grow corals".

 

[MnFish1]

My point is nobody on this forum is an arbiter of science. If you weren't following along, it wasn't directed towards you. Not sure why you feel compelled to comment if you don't understand the point and don't really care.

I understood your point. I agree with your point. (at least most of it). I also didn't think it was directed at me. IMHO A 'thread' is mostly a list of peoples experiences that 'agree with one another'. Its like having a conference only inviting scientists who do not believe in climate change and then using their speeches saying the same exact thing to 'prove' a climate change doesn't exist - and its science.

IMHO The "scientific" way to make conclusions from threads is the same way meta-analyses are done. You take all the threads cycling threads - and tabulate people's experience with bottled bacteria. Again - this does not mean that using threads the way some people (including @brandon429) do is wrong - as you said - it is still a collection of people's successes - and given this is a discussion board - not a journal editorial board - I agree with you there is value.

 

[Cell]

As a scientist, it's just funny to me when people point and shout "THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!". No need to gatekeep. We aren't writing up research papers for formal review here. It makes the knowledge gained no more or less true.

 

[MnFish1]

I find it amazing that only through anecdote we’ve made the stronger case that fish in cycling with bottle bac isn’t that controversial, and works.


very recently, anyone claiming this was outcast


how’d we arrive back so quick heh.


The surprising part will be the first measure posted showing a convincing, nh3 proofed case of ammonia noncontrol in a full sized display using the common surface area people use and the bacteria they add + the time they wait, on average ten days.



I‘m honestly not convinced of any counter claims.

I’ve been waiting eighteen pages for one single digital measure of nh3 noncontrol in a cycling attempt. the title request has not been fulfilled in any convincing way, by any pattern on file.


so this means on page thirty, when someone gets really really mad at the title and posts some flame before reading: to you I say thank you for joining our soon to be massive proof thread of happy, swimming fish.

When I responded (again) - to this post initially started more than a year ago - I said 'I thought this ship had sailed'. 1. I agree with you that you can cycle a tank with bottled bacteria and 2. That most people realize that it can be done. There is no real controversy - is there?

There are companies that make probably millions of dollars selling bottled bacteria - whose INSTRUCTIONS - say add fish and bacteria on day one. That you can add a full bioload. If this process were 'killing fish' right and left - I don't think it would be selling.

Professionals do this all the time as has been mentioned. I.e. that you can safely use a regular bioload on day 1. I've done it myself (multiple times).

Now - what I have heard people claiming is controversial - is whether using dry rock and bacteria immediately makes algae blooms more or less likely - or that bottled bacteria does anything at all more than 'time' itself (especially with a low bioload) would have done.

 

[MnFish1]

As a scientist, it's just funny to me when people point and shout "THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!". No need to gatekeep. We aren't writing up research papers for formal review here. It makes the knowledge gained no more or less true.

Lets, then cut out the word 'science' - and change it to the word 'conclusion'. Because - with few exceptions - there are not a lot of 'scientific experiments' posted here - mostly due to expense and lack of time.

Anyone can read a thread and 'conclude something'. That does not necessarily make that conclusion 'correct'. Especially given the huge variation in each and every tank. Without being specific - and I'm not trying per se to debate with you - just an example:

1. There is a thread out there suggesting that treating animal x with antibiotic y is extremely successful. There are post after post of people trying it - and having success. Same with another antibiotic - and certain types of algae. However most people having either problem do not use these antibiotics. Can we conclude that both methods are effective? Maybe - but the lack of a control group - or quoting people that do not use those methods may mean that with or with out the 'treatment' the same result would occur.
2. The example above is not designed to criticise @brandon429 or anyone who agrees the use of threads. Its only meant to point out some of the difficulties using that method.

 

[Cell]

Keep in mind the greater reefing population is not on forums and simply follows the advice of their LFS whose knowledge is often stuck in the stone age. Even if those stores do recommend bottled starter bac, for instance, they often don't really know how to use it properly and will happily sell the same customer multiple bottles for the same tank over time.

 

[jda]

I still see the same issues.

Real failures ignored.

Results from Dr. Reef are no surprise... I doubt that anybody has ever said that that .02 to .05 ppm of ammonia is harmful... I have added almost as much to low-fish tanks to get nitrogen to my acropora (within testing error). Most have taken issue with posts that 10x that amount have been said to be OK without any of the details that MnFish brings up about pH and quick volatility. Maybe this is a math issue? This reminds me of the Firestone tires thing a few decades ago that were proven save on the highway at 40mph, but all of the blowouts happened at 65mph. The difference matters a lot and seems lost or ignored on most.

No death means no issue still. Fish being deemed OK by observation only. No real proof, but the same people want proof on the other side of their arguments. I am not saying that proof exists for nearly anything, just the stupidity at which is is asked for and applied... no proof when you agree and demanding proof when you do not.

Methods that can work for this with higher levels of skill and experience are given as proof and still lack the nuance and details to help people new to the hobby actually succeed. AFAIK, any successes would have happened anyway just out of pure chance and because nature finds a way... especially with the failures written off as something else.

IMO, this discussion has value academically but not so much, at least by a lot of these people, in application.

@MnFish1 - observation is a better word.

 

[Cell]

Lets, then cut out the word 'science' - and change it to the word 'conclusion'. Because - with few exceptions - there are not a lot of 'scientific experiments' posted here - mostly due to expense and lack of time.

Anyone can read a thread and 'conclude something'. That does not necessarily make that conclusion 'correct'. Especially given the huge variation in each and every tank. Without being specific - and I'm not trying per se to debate with you - just an example:

1. There is a thread out there suggesting that treating animal x with antibiotic y is extremely successful. There are post after post of people trying it - and having success. Same with another antibiotic - and certain types of algae. However most people having either problem do not use these antibiotics. Can we conclude that both methods are effective? Maybe - but the lack of a control group - or quoting people that do not use those methods may mean that with or with out the 'treatment' the same result would occur.
2. The example above is not designed to criticise @brandon429 or anyone who agrees the use of threads. Its only meant to point out some of the difficulties using that method.

Again, I think the term science is being elevated here to some lofty level that seems unattainable by an average person and I completely disagree. Just because an experiment wouldn't survive the rigors of peer review and approved for publication does not mean it was not a science experiment.