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

[Tamberav]

Even if it is safe for fish... is it the best way to start the tank?

I always took the slow approach... I do use cycle bacteria these days but I still give it time and let the tank mature and start growing micro algae then add the cuc... then later I add corals or fish... sometimes corals before fish even. I am talking from a nano standpoint as most my tanks have been nano's.

I haven't seen much issue with GHA, cyano, dino, etc. by taking the slow road and enjoying each step. I will say it seems very easy to get through an 'ugly phase' when you don't have fish to feed but do have an appropriate CUC.

If you are a QT person... then you can QT your first fish in a different tank while the tank does it's thing and matures a bit.

 

[Cell]

"Observation" as in a key step in the "scientific method"?

Be careful with that word, someone might confuse this as true science!

 

[jda]

Even if it is safe for fish... is it the best way long term for the tank?

You have to set aside the terms that you think that you know and read and understand what is being discussed here. They kinda have their definition for terms.

The word "cycle" get used a lot, but all of this is mostly about handing ammonia for a while until something more like a cycle happens later on down the road. Nitrite gets ignored, which is fine since just to keep fish alive, this does not matter. This is not about establishing what most call a true cycle. It is mostly about surviving and being able to have fish right away. Lots of time, a real cycle follows, but sometimes do does death, a failure to start or just a failure. Just because the real cycle sometimes happens (even, most of the time) does not mean that cycle is the right word here. I am not against this as a rule... it can get people interested in the hobby... just the right amount of caution and details need to be presented to explain it all and that is NOT what this group does.

The full cycle, by the way, goes all the way to converting no3 into nitrogen gas, but this is missed on most people and not just this group. It can quickly adapt to changes in the tank, meaning that both the oxic and anoxic bacteria are well established. Cycled tanks are enduring, not just functioning.

Observation also has the indication that application matters in only the context that it was observed. I am kinda sick of these strawmen that keep getting thrown around here. Who has said that science is somehow bad or anything or that people are adverse to it? If any of you want people to take this seriously outside of your little click and some noobies that you can have do your experiments for some of you (which is in no way, shape or form science), then stopping with the strawmen might be nice. I digress, but if any of you took the time to lay out all of the needed things that went into your observation, then you might get less grief. It is the combination of thinking that what you have observed is universal and also asking other people to do more of it, often without any skill or experience, that causes the ire. ...and about 10% taking credit for things that do not need to be taken credit for.

 

[MnFish1]

Even if it is safe for fish... is it the best way to start the tank?

I always took the slow approach... I do use cycle bacteria these days but I still give it time and let the tank mature and start growing micro algae then add the cuc... then later I add corals or fish... sometimes corals before fish even. I am talking from a nano standpoint as most my tanks have been nano's.

I haven't seen much issue with GHA, cyano, dino, etc. by taking the slow road and enjoying each step. I will say it seems very easy to get through an 'ugly phase' when you don't have fish to feed but do have an appropriate CUC.

If you are a QT person... then you can QT your first fish in a different tank while the tank does it's thing and matures a bit.

IMHO - there should not be any difference. Like I said before - the controversy surrounding this issue seems more related to problems with the tank later on - rather than immediate toxicity to fish. And there is no reason not to do the 'slow method' either.

But the topic which we've gotten off of slightly - and @jda alluded to earlier is the title of this thread: 'prove that fish in cycles harm fish'. There is no reason to 'prove this' - because its already been fairly well proven IMHO that fish in cycles do NOT harm fish. Why would (and how could) someone use their time 'proving that statement'? I.e. it seems like the discussion has turned into this: Since no one is proving 'fish in cycles harm fish' - that means that whoever and however someone wants to do it is always going to be successful.

This is where I disagree. And the problem with 'work threads' - is you can't always extrapolate (using Brandon's example) 2 clownfish in a 65 gallon aquarium on day 1 to 25 clownfish in a 65 gallon aquarium or 7 tangs in a 65 gallon tank. And many times it becomes a pile on (one way or the other) on these types of topics, in my experience.

 

[jda]

I will say that fish-in cycles do not HAVE to harm fish, but they sometimes do, and more than what this click wants to admit. The differences in care, details, nuance, etc. is what I have a problem with. Sure, the issue is likely the hobbyist since the tools exist, but the failures are real and nobody seems to want to teach them how to use the tools right, rather just tell them what has worked for different set of people and then use them as a tally mark later on.

 

[MnFish1]

"Observation" as in a key step in the "scientific method"?

Be careful with that word, someone might confuse this as true science!

As a scientist - you know that the scientific method is much more than 'observation'.

"The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results."

It seems like what we're doing here is asking for people to compile a bunch of observations - and disprove them. Except the observations have never followed anything like the 'scientific method'. So asking to 'disprove' a bunch of observations is practically if not completely impossible.

 

[MnFish1]

I will say that fish-in cycles do not HAVE to harm fish, but they sometimes do, and more than what this click wants to admit. The differences in care, details, nuance, etc. is what I have a problem with. Sure, the issue is likely the hobbyist since the tools exist, but the failures are real and nobody seems to want to teach them how to use the tools right, rather just tell them what has worked for different set of people and then use them as a tally mark later on.

Isn't this the same kind of argument though that both sides of the quarantine/anti-quarantine use? The QT people say the anti group is playing Russian roulette. The Anti QT group says you're poisoning the fish with chemicals that will kill them.

IMHO - you shouldn't blame the method - if the hobbyist is not 'following instructions'. Ive said it before - I'll say it again - after a couple months in a tank - dead rock is live rock and 'bacteria is bacteria'. If you add nitrifying bacteria lets say Fritz 9000 - follow the instructions - Add a reasonable amount of fish. Your 'dry rock' tank will be very similar to waiting 2 months for a cycle. Again - assuming Fritz is true nitrifies. Heterotrophs will start growing quickly with the addition of fish/coral/CUC, etc

 

[jda]

People come here for help. The ones involved in this know very little and need help more than most. I blame the people who do or don't help them. If we lived in a utopia where people all took the time to understand and know everything before they acted, then this board would not exist or would many other things and institutions in the world.

Don't hate the player, hate the game is a cop out excuse to me. This is not an erector set or lego building where instructions are foolproof.

 

[Cell]

As a scientist - you know that the scientific method is much more than 'observation'.

"The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results."

It seems like what we're doing here is asking for people to compile a bunch of observations - and disprove them. Except the observations have never followed anything like the 'scientific method'. So asking to 'disprove' a bunch of observations is practically if not completely impossible.

Just pointing out the absurdity of saying something doesn't qualify as science, then renaming it to a word that is used to define science...

 

[HomebroodExotics]

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".

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".

OK show us then instead of asking people to show proof otherwise and then ignoring it. Literally anyone who offers a differing anecdot is immediately shot down. I see you have the super real anecdotes too. Must have got your experience from the highly qualified show tanked as well.

Also you are arguing that ammonia levels don't exist...that's actually the opposite of what the other anecdotes here are. The ammonia very much exists. It apparently just isn't harmful. Or maybe it doesn't exist now? Hard to keep up

 

[mindme]

OK show us then instead of asking people to show proof otherwise and then ignoring it. Literally anyone who offers a differing anecdot is immediately shot down. I see you have the super real anecdotes too. Must have got your experience from the highly qualified show tanked as well.

Also you are arguing that ammonia levels don't exist...that's actually the opposite of what the other anecdotes here are. The ammonia very much exists. It apparently just isn't harmful. Or maybe it doesn't exist now? Hard to keep up

Putting bacteria in your tank is the same thing as it being cycled.

Why is this a debate?

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Putting bacteria in your tank is the same thing as it being cycled.

Why is this a debate?

Why are you asking me? I didn't make the thread.

 

[92Miata]

OK show us then instead of asking people to show proof otherwise and then ignoring it. Literally anyone who offers a differing anecdot is immediately shot down. I see you have the super real anecdotes too. Must have got your experience from the highly qualified show tanked as well.

Show you what? What specifically are you looking for? Trials have been posted in this thread. Studies have been linked to in this thread.

Read the thread. Read the studies. This is settled science.

Also you are arguing that ammonia levels don't exist...that's actually the opposite of what the other anecdotes here are. The ammonia very much exists. It apparently just isn't harmful. Or maybe it doesn't exist now? Hard to keep up

Nobody is arguing that. Where do you people get this nonsense?

Seriously, stop making up arguments for other people. If you don't understand what people are talking about, ASK!

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Show you what? What specifically are you looking for? Trials have been posted in this thread. Studies have been linked to in this thread.

Read the thread. Read the studies. This is settled science.


Nobody is arguing that. Where do you people get this nonsense?

Seriously, stop making up arguments for other people.

You literally said that in youre last post but I'm the one making stuff up? Ok

 

[92Miata]

IMHO - there should not be any difference. Like I said before - the controversy surrounding this issue seems more related to problems with the tank later on - rather than immediate toxicity to fish. And there is no reason not to do the 'slow method' either.

But the topic which we've gotten off of slightly - and @jda alluded to earlier is the title of this thread: 'prove that fish in cycles harm fish'. There is no reason to 'prove this' - because its already been fairly well proven IMHO that fish in cycles do NOT harm fish. Why would (and how could) someone use their time 'proving that statement'? I.e. it seems like the discussion has turned into this: Since no one is proving 'fish in cycles harm fish' - that means that whoever and however someone wants to do it is always going to be successful.

This is where I disagree. And the problem with 'work threads' - is you can't always extrapolate (using Brandon's example) 2 clownfish in a 65 gallon aquarium on day 1 to 25 clownfish in a 65 gallon aquarium or 7 tangs in a 65 gallon tank. And many times it becomes a pile on (one way or the other) on these types of topics, in my experience.

No one is making this argument. Stop arguing in bad faith.

 

[Cell]

Observation also has the indication that application matters in only the context that it was observed. I am kinda sick of these strawmen that keep getting thrown around here. Who has said that science is somehow bad or anything or that people are adverse to it? If any of you want people to take this seriously outside of your little click and some noobies that you can have do your experiments for some of you (which is in no way, shape or form science), then stopping with the strawmen might be nice. I digress, but if any of you took the time to lay out all of the needed things that went into your observation, then you might get less grief. It is the combination of thinking that what you have observed is universal and also asking other people to do more of it, often without any skill or experience, that causes the ire. ...and about 10% taking credit for things that do not need to be taken credit for.

If you are going to disqualify a thread because you deem it not science, you cannot then label the subsequent discussion as to what exactly science is as a strawman argument.

The process of thinking what I have observed may be universal, then asking others to repeat it to observe if they get the same results...wait for it...IS SCIENCE!

 

[MnFish1]

OK show us then instead of asking people to show proof otherwise and then ignoring it. Literally anyone who offers a differing anecdot is immediately shot down. I see you have the super real anecdotes too. Must have got your experience from the highly qualified show tanked as well.

Also you are arguing that ammonia levels don't exist...that's actually the opposite of what the other anecdotes here are. The ammonia very much exists. It apparently just isn't harmful. Or maybe it doesn't exist now? Hard to keep up

This seems to be how some of these 'discussions' devolve. I'll say it again (not that I'm the final say) - but - the topic is from 2021 - somehow it was brought up again. I think the issue is solved - right?

There are some of people who have a Seneye or Seachem alert - who have not had any problems with NH3. There are plenty of people who have used 'bacteria in a bottle' and 'dry rock' - that are successful. The question at the top of the thread is 'prove that there has ever been a problem'. The common sense answer is - there are MANY examples of problems with ammonia - whether with cycling, a fish dying, a bacterial bloom, etc. Ammonia is toxic - there is no debate. I dont think there is a debate that free (toxic) ammonia - is much lower as the pH goes down - So - all of the threads claiming success need to post their salinity, temp and pH - because all can affect free ammonia. Why is this important ? Some salts mix to an alkalinity of 10-12 - some are 7-8. Some mix to a higher or lower pH - But either way pH is a huge thing IMHO.

There are some people who have failed with trying a quick cycle - was that the quick cycle? Was it diseased fish? Etc - IDK

There are a lot of people who have had no problems with API test kits - and many that have. I have used them (multiple versions for over 10 years) - and do not find them any better (or worse) - than other tests. Maybe my opinion is wrong.

I guess seeing the re-ignition of this post was initially "its really hard to prove a negative" and second If someone came and said prove the sky isn't blue - that would be extrememtly difficult (lets say at noon on a cloudless day - and not in Los Angeles) - sorry - thought a little humor was warranted

 

[jda]

Putting bacteria in your tank is the same thing as it being cycled.

Why is this a debate?

If this is a real post, and I hope that it is sarcasm or some sort of mocking, then this is all that anybody needs to know about how these type of discussions can be harmful. Of course just putting bacteria in your tank is in no way, shape or form a cycle. This type of stuff can harm people looking for help or wanting to learn... just put in some bacteria and you are all set...

 

[92Miata]

You literally said that in youre last post but I'm the one making stuff up? Ok

No, I literally did not say that in my post. Seriously, words are important here.

What I said is that there is never any readable ammonia when I do bacteria bottle cycles.

That is absolutely not the same thing as what you said

you are arguing that ammonia levels don't exist

Again - words are important. I am absolutely not arguing that "ammonia levels don't exist". It is important that you stop misrepresenting people.


Again - if you do not understand what someone is saying, ask them. Do not make arguments up for them.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

No, I literally did not say that in my post. Seriously, words are important here.

What I said is that there is never any readable ammonia when I do bacteria bottle cycles.

That is absolutely not the same thing as what you said


Again - words are important. I am absolutely not arguing that "ammonia levels don't exist"

Uhm if there's never a readable level then it don't exist. what the heck am I missing here?