Can't get dead fish out! Will it be ok?

[brandon429]

big picture view:

why does any of this matter, what matters if a group of 20 posters believe 15/5 in old cycling science vs new?

because policy influences procedure, and the disease forum is 99% of all fish loss we can find on this site. I don't know how many pages we'd have to click back in the new tanks forum to find fish loss, maybe 1 fish lost per 5 years of it's running

but in the disease forum? 15 new posts about loss are coming today alone. the incorrect policy of the masses regarding cycling science is killing fish, by redirection, though they don't mean to it's just a habit they cannot break. paradigms are closesly held to chest, despite number of links provided + content of those links. the fear is simply stronger than the ability to change course based on easily searched data.

to get change in fish loss % we have to change the degree we weigh cycling details vs disease details, you can see they don't go hand in hand they're mutually exclusive practices per old cycling science. that is why cycling fear will likely win out over disease preps, again, here so that's a big picture big deal.

we are training each other to repeat practices that kill fish, not save them, so the 15 new coming threads in the disease forum are kinda shared in causative by us as a group.

 

[Dburr1014]

big picture view:

why does any of this matter, what matters if a group of 20 posters believe 15/5 in old cycling science vs new?

because policy influences procedure, and the disease forum is 99% of all fish loss we can find on this site. I don't know how many pages we'd have to click back in the new tanks forum to find fish loss, maybe 1 fish lost per 5 years of it's running

but in the disease forum? 15 new posts about loss are coming today alone. the incorrect policy of the masses regarding cycling science is killing fish, by redirection, though they don't mean to it's just a habit they cannot break. paradigms are closesly held to chest, despite number of links provided + content of those links. the fear is simply stronger than the ability to change course based on easily searched data.

to get change in fish loss % we have to change the degree we weigh cycling details vs disease details, you can see they don't go hand in hand they're mutually exclusive practices per old cycling science.

Nobody posts about something going right!

Hey, I started a tank 10 days ago and it cycled as it should!

LOL, right!

 

[brandon429]

groupthink is power but that doesn't make it correct, or good for fish retention changes we need

what if all fish all of a sudden cost $800 per fish, any species

we'd focus less on cycling and more on disease control...we're not incented enough yet. the easy price of fish + the easily searched threads showing disease as the killer not primary ammonia rising + the links in this thread showing inherent ammonia control across reef tanks even with shock absorber doses simply isn't enough to sway practice

yet

we change 'em one by one into new cycling science adherents

 

[brian222]

if I were in the same situation I would not add any other chemical products but just do water changes, and also do you know the cause of death?

 

[SteveMM62Reef]

One Nassarius Snail will take care of it. Try to get one from a LFS, That keeps their Inverts Separate from their incoming fish, to minimize introducing a disease.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

big picture view:

why does any of this matter, what matters if a group of 20 posters believe 15/5 in old cycling science vs new?

because policy influences procedure, and the disease forum is 99% of all fish loss we can find on this site. I don't know how many pages we'd have to click back in the new tanks forum to find fish loss, maybe 1 fish lost per 5 years of it's running

but in the disease forum? 15 new posts about loss are coming today alone. the incorrect policy of the masses regarding cycling science is killing fish, by redirection, though they don't mean to it's just a habit they cannot break. paradigms are closesly held to chest, despite number of links provided + content of those links. the fear is simply stronger than the ability to change course based on easily searched data.

to get change in fish loss % we have to change the degree we weigh cycling details vs disease details, you can see they don't go hand in hand they're mutually exclusive practices per old cycling science. that is why cycling fear will likely win out over disease preps, again, here so that's a big picture big deal.

we are training each other to repeat practices that kill fish, not save them, so the 15 new coming threads in the disease forum are kinda shared in causative by us as a group.

I'm struggling to understand the purpose of your post. First thought was that you posted in the wrong thread. Clearly there's an agenda, and I get your point. But what does, to remove a dead fish or not remove a dead fish have to do with focus on disease over cycle?

 

[brandon429]

I wouldn't expect at all that you'd agree with that tie in. everything I wrote is the basis of pretty much any cycling work thread I have posted on for the last 5 years. you can see clearly when reading this thread: disease was not the focus as it should be, ammonia fears were. the most likely cause of this thread is disease loss of fish, what to do after wasn't the real issue that was already discerned in the studies noted as links, the one about adding ammonia to cycled reefs and those reefs being just fine

before, during, after the cycle = ammonia fears are old cycling science

the first paragraph in my recent cycling thread is that ammonia fears should take a back seat, and disease prevention the front seat, this is a continuance of the last few years work on file.

 

[workhz]

I think Brandon’s messages would be easier to digest if they were an easier read.

Cycled reefs can deal with ammonia. Concentrate on the cause of death before other (and future) inhabitants suffer a similar fate.

 

[brandon429]

there isn't a time after cycle has completed that ammonia is a concern in a fully running reef tank due to active surface area rules

when someone has the confidence to trust their cycle they know to move forward and focus on what really keeps their fish alive

any cycling debate thread can be searched and read to see how disease preps are excluded in nearly all cases, and how the tank is well after the known cycle completion date for the arrangement used...these are searchable patterns in all cycle debate threads. updated cycling science knows when to move on from ammonia fear, and that involves the occasional fish loss in any reef tank. we have tracked hundreds of times the full degradation of a fish in a reef tank being harmless in order to make the calls stated here, they weren't first go.

instantly move away from doubting the tank's cycle control, and instantly move into Jays disease forum and read the stickies=best way to prevent future fish losses

there's a small % chance this goby had a genetic defect but whats more likely is stocking up the euphyllia corals + other fish without preps (fallow prep) brought in the goodies, to fully express a few mos down the line.

 

[Crustaceon]

A fish this size dying in an established 30g isn't going to cause a problem. The tank has plenty of bacteria to handle the gradual release of ammonia as the carcass decays, not to mention most of that fish has probably already been eaten by pods and bristleworms.

 

[brandon429]

I do think it must be a little funny when any Op gets back to checking their alerts and sees their post has gone microviral. sometimes we hit the debate market just right.

when you get a chance to see this O we need a tank pic to close it right out and add to study threads that use prediction models for reef cycle challenges

sometimes they never post back lol I have seen that occasionally. the pile on can be just 2 strong

 

[oliverw953]

Thank you everyone for your replies!! I have left it there. May be hard to see on the image but he is in a hole on the bottom right rock.

I did a 30% water change, have fed less today and will do this week. Changing out the filter socks everyday this week too.

Not planning to add anything chemical wise.

Smell has gone! It smelt lastnight for me, 6pm here for me and cannot smell anything now.

Will do a further 20% change tomorrow morning just to be sure.

I test manually and will be doing some tests in a few hours, will post my results on ammonia, nitrite and nitrates.

Tank does not look upset in the slightest. Fish has been dead atleast 48 hours now.

Skimmer and socks and pulling some gunk for sure.

Sorry for the bad pic, my camera is crap

 

[brandon429]

hey thats a truly nice reef

that's enough surface area to handle 3 dead gobies or better. really nice scape, rock density, all fish in the correct position for a random shot vs hovering at the top unable to breathe (what ammonia toxicity causes) and all corals open, excellent. thanks tons for posting back this is the evolution of cycling science we needed your input. your tanks ability to handle ammonia was never doubted not one microsecond, pic confirms. solid.

the extra nutrient from the meat was decomposed and distributed and corals likely got some of the bits as primary or secondary feed, overall a positive feeding event though it's sad it was a fish u paid for vs some rod's food added.

 

[brandon429]

 

[j.falk]

Smelled...not smelt.

 

[workhz]

Smelled...not smelt.

Only if you're from North America.

 

[j.falk]

Only if you're from North America.

I'll be darn...learned something new today.

 

[oliverw953]

So my parameters are:

Ammonia 0.15
Nitrite 0
Nitrate between 25 and 50

Nitrate is higher but I suppose that's a good sign that the bacteria is doing its thing

 

[Goaway]

So my parameters are:

Ammonia 0.15
Nitrite 0
Nitrate between 25 and 50

Nitrate is higher but I suppose that's a good sign that the bacteria is doing its thing

Speaking of which, this can also lead to algae bloom and that gives room for a certain.pest to scream at you to do a rip clean.

 

[blecki]

I think Brandon’s messages would be easier to digest if they were an easier read.

Or if the dude actually picked a controversial topic. His whole thing just boils down to live rock good and... yeah, we know.