Amonia won't drop in cycle?

[MnFish1]

also, this analogy tests claims about limitations:

if bac req extra feed to become fixed, then why does hooking up nine extra canister filters to your already running fine tank yield 9x fully cycled reef materials in a month? Your current filtration was supposedly using up all the feed needed since you had no free ammonia. how did the extra canister filters add mass, bac, off the same feed amnts you were already reducing?

if you take away all those canisters at once, no down ramp, does your free ammonia skyrocket>?

you can hook up an infinite amnt of canister filters inline all at once and they'll all self cycle in a month, and you can always take them all away instantly and never recycle the main tank if the bioloading amnts never changed.

a typical bioloading runs, and is ran by, one canister filter, or eighty, or none, where rocks and sand are an avail alternate surface area. if your procedure was in place, all added canister filters would never self cycle since no new ammonia was added.

water=everything they need all we do is cheat the timeframes.

if we don't rush the molly analogy timeframe: give three mollies in a 100 three months time, then add five tangs and it'll pass just fine. three mollies/tangs/dry substrate off 9 days not fair timeframe. three months submersion with any boosts (even light molly loading compared to a consistent 3 ppm the whole time, lets say) equals a fully cycled reef in three mos, even if you had perfect boosts and bottle bac added the whole time. same ends. if you were racing for nine day completion, then the precisely fed and guided one is the best bet

Thats where we disagree. And neither of us has a way to prove the opposite - but I will say common sense says (and so does multiple research articles) - when the ammonia drops to a level that is non-sustainable for the bacteria - they go into a resting state.

 

[MnFish1]

the bacteria will only multiply /live to the amount of ammonia generated

that's the part I debate. it implies that bac have no other way to gain support and feed unless we will them something

BTW- this stretches common sense.

 

[brandon429]

why don't you make a cycling thread, by page 5 your claims w be tested, they'll either succeed or they'll post losses. I have no doubt you cycle your own tanks just fine, but begin working outbound with a hundred people who wont follow timelines and who demand to go off api tests as the sole and complete definition of completed cycles, even if they're using fw cards. its tough~ to run those and not have losses posted... or to attain reliable start times since everyone's nitrite testing accuracy ranges big-time. The .25 continues forever in some tanks, to many that means wait longer till bac build up even if day eighty


timelining is the only streamlining action



You r quick to discount our fallow testing in your last claim
No dormancy resulted from thirty months unfed

All linkable studies come from oceanic and wastewater research, not aquarium research, make some new studies n link

dormancy is how some of them ship bottle bac/ doesn't apply to aquariums they don't go dormant if they're wet.

pure cultures, isolated, restricted feed due to true aseptic prep is how bottle bac is set/total opposites of how we cycle

 

[MnFish1]

why don't you make a cycling thread, by page 5 your claims w be tested, they'll either succeed or they'll post losses. I have no doubt you cycle your own tanks just fine, but begin working outbound with a hundred people who wont follow timelines and who demand to go off api tests as the sole and complete definition of completed cycles, even if they're using fw cards. its tough~ to run those and not have losses posted... or to attain reliable start times since everyone's nitrite testing accuracy ranges big-time. The .25 continues forever in some tanks, to many that means wait longer till bac build up even if day eighty


timelining is the only streamlining action



You r quick to discount our fallow testing in your last claim
No dormancy resulted from thirty months unfed

All linkable studies come from oceanic and wastewater research, not aquarium research, make some new studies n link

dormancy is how some of them ship bottle bac/ doesn't apply to aquariums they don't go dormant if they're wet.

pure cultures, isolated, restricted feed due to true aseptic prep is how bottle bac is set/total opposites of how we cycle

LOL didnt discount anything - Pay attention

 

[MnFish1]

You r quick to discount our fallow testing in your last claim
No dormancy resulted from thirty months unfed

All linkable studies come from oceanic and wastewater research, not aquarium research, make some new studies n link dormancy is how some of them ship bottle bac/ doesn't apply to aquariums they don't go dormant if they're wet. pure cultures, isolated, restricted feed due to true aseptic prep is how bottle bac is set/total opposites of how we cycle

So we're clear - I never discounted fallow testing. Ever.

According to research - nitrifying bacteria do go into a 'resting state' when ammonia drops. Thus if there is only a small amount of ammonia - there cant be an ever growing population of bacteria. Thats biology and common sense. Again - you may be correct - if you dose ammonia to 4 ppm and a cycle completes that might be great - but lots of people don't do that. So why are you arguing commons sense? I agree with you - dose ammonia to 4 ppm - and if it cycles - you're probably good because nitrifying bacteria go into a resting state. If you dont do that - you are probably not going to have as good a result....

 

[brandon429]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...lect-and-compare-answers.472919/#post-5222945

All y'all post please. It's a legit sample of the community

 

[brandon429]

Also I agree with you if they're truly unfed they go dormant


Truly unfed

Accounting for all bacteria feed is really hard that's why it takes Industries dedicated to it

 

[brandon429]

@reefndude

 

[F22DRVR]

This could be dangerous, but I'd like to jump in with a question similar to the original topic, as it relates to some of the information provided above.

I went to my LFS last weekend. I was looking at fish when the owner asked if I had any questions. I mentioned I was planning my first fish purchase, but, my tank was not cycled yet, so I was just looking. He asked for my details:

I told him I had a brand new tank (RS525XL), new live rock, marine pure in the sump, total water around 131 gallons, 16oz of Dr. Tim's one and only, and Dr. Tim's ammonia to 2ppm. At week three the ammonia was gone finally, but the nitrites have yet to come down. They're at approximately 2ppm. I'm now going into week five and no drop in nitrites. According to Dr. Tim's instructions, I'm not to dose ammonia again until the nitrites come down to zero or close.

Here is the questions: As stated above in agreement between Brandon429 & MnFish1: "if they're truly unfed they go dormant" If this is true, and I'm not dosing any ammonia per Dr Tim's instructions I noted above, and, it takes two, three, maybe four more weeks until my nitrites come down (as each tank is different), then could my bacteria go dormant, thus forcing me to start a "second" cycle? In other words, is it possible that some tanks, maybe mine, go through multiple cycles before it's safe to add the first fish?