That test comes from the concern that the cycle won’t complete if we don’t do something to prove it = not needed
The secondary concern is that if we withhold feed the bac won’t implant but thats not the case we show below.
I have never seen a failed bottle bac cycle. Failure to verify one at bodybuilding levels of ammonia doesn’t matter.
Even if no liquid ammonia added at all time spent with that velvet fish putting doubt in my claim
was the setting period…bac were well fed at this interval and they implant onto surfaces fast and don’t fail to do so.
the need for two ppm movement proof will endure in the hobby for a while longer as we continue to use evaluation tools that aren’t very consistent tank to tank, doubt in completion will remain as nondigital testing remains.
The best way to see outside the scope of no-tan ammonia reports and highly subjective api and red sea ammonia tests is to purposefully search out seneye measurement logs posted online here by owners. We can direct message them to see their logs from start cycle date and they’re all hundredths nh3 or lower, right off the bat.
they will tell you in message they didn’t need to move that much ammonia they could see the compliant ability to manage ammonia precisely and without the huge spike test. Once we see enough startup seneye logs on display tanks the pattern of compliance is apparent, and it applies in timing even to nonseneye tanks such as this one here today.
This isn’t a flippant ignorance of the rules either; we specifically test the claims for twenty pages now in this thread. We turn out twenty pages of complete cycles never doing that spike one single time.
Updated Cycling Science in Action This is a testless reef tank cycling thread, the only one from any board. If you ever had trouble with reef tank cycling in the past, you won't any longer after working some jobs with us. chances are you are using/about to use a method of reef tank cycling...
www.reef2reef.com
