A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac

[BeanAnimal]

I don't think this applies to live rock threads at all, it's a sandbed measure.

those were not alarming levels of ammonia posted even at the highest mark.

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.

 

[brandon429]

do you personally feel your own tank couldn't degrade a fish or two> I've seen two tangs degrade in a 55 before and nothing died or even closed up/no clouding, those are rather slow degradation rates compared to adding in liquid AC as was done in my thread example.

 

[MnFish1]

do you personally feel your own tank couldn't degrade a fish or two> I've seen two tangs degrade in a 55 before and nothing died or even closed up/no clouding, those are rather slow degradation rates compared to adding in liquid AC as was done in my thread example.

I have seen multiple tanks where a fish has died and if 'devoured' - or eaten by an anemone, there has been a rapid die off. Now, having said that, I once fed a 5 inch whole discus to an anemone - in the AM the only thing left was the skeleton. There was no effect on the tank.

I guarantee with near certitude that if you have a reef tank fully stocked with coral, etc - a dead fish is going to be a lot less of a problem or not a problem - depending on size, etc - than a tank that has just some bare live rock - since its fairly well known that corals etc take up ammonia. Unless one knows exactly the bioload of the dead xxxx and the exact size and composition of the tank (remaining fish and coral) - I don't think its possible to claim that nothing will happen with or without a sneeze. I mean - a firefish dying in a 100 gallon tank is likely to do nothing . A 5 inch adult angel likely will cause a problem

 

[MnFish1]

did you read anything from the huge link I posted of rare seneye tanks, resolving ammonia fast? is all that data invalid, since it's seneye?

PS - yes - all of that data is invalid - not because its seneye - it's because all of the data is not similar - and most people owning a seneye are likely more experienced (i.e. have less likelihood of a death episode). As I said above - a mature reef with lots of coral will likely handle a fish death/high bioload incident better than a new tank with no coral and just some live rock. Additionally the other fish in the tank (i.e the stocking density) is also important - and as far as I know none of those 'tanks' were reviewed for any of those things - thus - its hard to make any conclusions - seneye or not

 

[Baildia]

Moregis

 

[brandon429]

So none of the four permanent critics will validate my link

OK I accept that.

I don't accept any of your assertions, though. Stalemate continues.

The thread is awaiting more skip cycle builds. surely there's nothing left to argue about, for MN, Bean, Garf?

If someone appears with a tank we built all at once, that won't have any offense to you now that you've aired all grievances, here in my thread?

 

[brandon429]

I've presented all I can besides the actual reef jobs.


My rules run my jobs, if you disagree that's been made known.

It won't stop tank transfer work, cycle analysis and skip cycle jobs thankfully. Demand still exists.


Surely there's nothing left to argue about now, that all of you reject the data? At what point can I be free from the negativity only the select few bring? Let me know.

 

[Reefering1]

Stalemate? It doesn't seem like you're having the same discussion...

 

[brandon429]

I'm asking them to stop. Everyone but Lasse is on block, I don't see their recent posts is why. We're at the point they declined all proofs offered, that's max distance we can travel the issue on paper/ graph/ test on our tanks at home.

We're battling everything but how other people's reefs have turned out here.










If i simply only speak to those who are here to focus on the actual jobs we do: the thread can run ten more years. There's so many positive friends on the site, focusing there is wisest.



The majority are here for constructive cycle talk: re, the first three years here were peaceful because the jobs turned out well, in pattern.



The stalemate is that nothing they're posting, writing, changes the fact my rules run my outbound reef jobs and if the rule I use is bad: I'm here to account when the outcome goes south.




That's why their arguing should be all wrapped up now, they agree my link doesn't apply. their point was heard. Understood. Should be simple to get along now, they've won the link comparison battle.

Jobs continue on.



At what point are we allowed simply a clean slate start? They reject my data and discerned rules: ok.

clean start again, I've read they disagree with rules I stated, I've read that clearly. All set now.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Stalemate? It doesn't seem like you're having the same discussion..

. Everyone but Lasse is on block, I don't see their recent posts is why.

You are correct, there is no stalemate — he refuses to actually discuss anything that would invalidate his position and just doubles down on the theme that all data the proves him wrong is invalid.

That does not preclude him from continually using thinly veiled insults and language to call others out…

He wonders why his threads get locked, but never considers his own behavior as problematic.

Everyone here has been overly kind and tried to engage him factually, he just refuses to respond in context.

These threads are a circus of his own making and I can’t honestly fathom why staff would reopen them, but that is their call.

 

[MnFish1]

The point of my last post was 'why do you require a Seneye' to disprove your theory? Thats like saying - I'll only consider your points if the sun doesn't rise for 3 days straight. Very few people use Seneye's. But as Randy Holmes Farley said - weeks or months ago - can't you just tell everyone your protocol?

 

[brandon429]

OK Bean I completely read that post.

Understood. Can that be it, or there's more? Once you're done, expended on the matter, all we're going to do is peacefully await a couple skip cycle builds/ what we did first few years. Back to a calm, boring repetitive thread

Your anger was heard, validated too.

Clean start now for all?

I'll keep stating the same rules before and after the jobs I'll log this month, not to offend but because that's been the standard for five years so far/ we agree to disagree. Easy, simple.

 

[brandon429]

MNFish i read your addition too, no I don't want to respond bc I think that's just baiting me to argue. We're good now too? Can move on?

I was glad to link your two studies still. We got to see live rock specific things, I appreciated that part. It was objective, that's why it was helpful. Few words were needed for us to discern an outcome, we just needed a thread to read that you led.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Understood.

Time will tell.

If that means a permanent site-wide end to the inflammatory pet names and phraseology aimed at your peers and established methods, that would be a very welcome start and go a long way toward simplifying constructive dialog.

I'll keep stating the same rules before and after the jobs I'll log this month, not to offend but because that's been the standard for five years so far/ we agree to disagree. Easy, simple.

I think there is a disconnect here in expectations and you are going to find yourself having to answer the very same questions about those rules and their validity that you have all along.

When you present opinions, especially framing them as rules governed by new science in a public space, there is certain to be debate. You can't reasonably expect to dictate the conditions of that debate or your critics to "agree to disagree", so as not to be exposed to dissent or critical evaluation (peer review).

 

[Lasse]

If you test your top aerobic zones are the levels the same now? No trending needed, I was genuinely interested in knowing.

The test cover 3 months - I think that the time span is large enough to claim that I have the same situation today. Have nor done measurements after 2024-08-14 though

what's the common man going to encounter as far as unused free ammonia, among sandbed bacteria with oxygen present? I cannot imagine such a valuable resource left unused in that proximity to hungry microbes.

In a mature aquarium - sand and stones are mostly occupied by heterotrophic bacteria - aerobic at the surface and anaerobic in the deeper layer of sand, deeper pockets of rock and if the rock´s biofilm is thick enough - the deeper part of it. If autotrophic nitrification bacteria is present - they are in the upper layer of a thin biofilm.

The heterotrophic bacteria is mostly "break down" bacteria - they breaks down organic matter in a process named mineralization - it means - organic carbon -> mostly into CO2; organic phosphorous -> dissolved PO4 and organic nitrogen into NH3/NH4. Of the organic matter existing at a certain time stamp - around 20 % will be built in into bacteria biomass - around 80 % will be mineralised. This breakdown process is much, much faster in an aerobic environment compared with an anaerobic environment.

Contrary to popular belief, bacterial decomposition in most cases results in the formation of CO2, PO4 and NH3/NH4 from organic carbon, organic phosphate and organic nitrogen. Up to about 80% of the organic "elements" will be mineralized in this way.

In most cases this process is accelerated by access to "fast" organic carbon (labile DOC)

My experiment showed that this happens quickly because in the plenum 6-8 times more NH3/NH4 was continuously "dissolved" than was present in the incoming water. Important to know is that there is only around 1-2 L below my plenum and the flow through this volume was - at the relevant time period - between 60 and 80 L per hour.

It can be mentioned that PO4 shows a significantly more complicated picture - sometimes it was dissolved - sometimes it was taken up. The same applies to NO3 while NO2 shows a strong tendency to be released below the plenum

The redox potential indicates that there is a preponderance of oxidation below the plenum - thus the processes below the plenum are likely aerobic.

All of this together supports the assumption that a sudden increase in degradable organic matter - such as a dead fish - increases the risk of NH3/NH4 release and accumulation in the water column.

Also, since I too linked a valid thread earlier showing copious ammonia dosing into seneye tanks, you can see many of those are prime value examples showing consistency down to thousandths ppm and you can see how many different reefs attain that average, after calibration.

Once again - Seneye only shows the NH3 part of NH3/NH4 and it is only around 5-10% of the total NH3/NH4 concentration. It is not suitable, accurate enough or fast enough to be used for this type of measurements. API gives an indication but for hobby use Hanna's method for measuring NH3/NH4 is superior - at least with the Hanna Marin Master that I have used.

Sorry for the long post but I want to try to show - once and for all - that all the talk about high NH3/NH4 concentrations not being able to occur in an old and mature aquarium is nothing more than the bull's leftover after it has eat.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[brandon429]

Thank you for that post Lasse. That lifts up this thread with deep science. Ill enjoy reading that a few times over during work and thinking about those processes. Excellent.