Mini cycle

[Garf]

mods

this is the only way I can stop the arguments

being allowed not to block is causing this jam-up, make him ignore my posts and site positivity will increase fourfold.

I absolutely do not post in Beans threads, I only respond to his incessant attacks. If he would hit block, we won't have this trouble because we'd never interact. I don't mind responding to his off-topic insults if you want to leave the status quo in place, but it's going to get worse not better you can see from reading his post history the last 48 hours.

You do know this is posted in the chemistry forum? As I understand it, possible false claims or even misunderstanding the difference between total and free ammonia, or the lethality of ammonia in a "mini cycle" is a "prime" candidate for a reply, do you not think? Sounds like you may be getting things muxed ip.

 

[brandon429]

it's usually me that has to do the post temperature resets lol I can see that's the case. Bean heats it up too much. I thought the OP had to endure a lot, a lot, of static here for her to extract the most useable science on the next go-round (the next tank challenge, anyone's next tank challenge involving cycle control doubt)

we could improve that science transfer if we keep the tones directly in line with reef tank cpr vs battles. that's why I want to not argue here.

so, to preserve the post tone and temp for ammonia alert thread #187 encountered and logged as I see the mechanics at hand I simply await the tank update pic.

I'm not going to write anything, or do any captian Morgan poses when it comes I simply want the before, during and after pic set for my cycle pattern studies.

I think it's good that the majority here agree ammonia went uncontrolled for 30 days among aged reef rocks.

that gives a very wide range of outcome potentials for readers to choose as they see fit

*what we determine here impacts what readers will do in their own tanks during challenge times, getting to the bottom of it isn't possible at this exact juncture.

the only objective thing we will get is reef pics. in 2030 I bet nh3 testing will be such that all these predictions we've logged finally have a known truth in place.

 

[brandon429]

Garf I'm genuinely interested to know if you think dangerous ammonia was teetering here for 20+ plus days, barely saved yet again by low pH.



how can we garner that response from just Taricha's caption above/not counting the prior links that establish how fast truly live cured rocks uptake ammonia? T is stating right there that reef tanks uptake ammonia fast, and that portions of the reading should be discounted, small portions.

transferred sand doesn't leak ammonia for days uncontrollably or it would already be leaking it. how can a tank assembled again, looking perfectly normal the whole time, be continually now leaking ammonia uncontrolled for 20 days?

those details plus a set of pics you couldnt tell which were before, during after if I mixed them up are you sure cannot mean she didn't have 20 days of ammonia noncontrol? you're sold fully she did, I really do want to know if you call it that way. I don't believe you think that.

I think that you predict her ammonia alert phase was about a week or so, is that right?

 

[Garf]

I'm genuinely interested to know if you think dangerous ammonia was teetering here for 20+ plus days

I don't recall anyone saying the reported ammonia level was dangerous, although you have implied it. 16th April to 25th April is not 20+ plus days, and reported levels were well under control by then. You do understand that this type of misinformation can be checked by anyone willing to entertain you?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Bean heats it up too much. I thought the OP had to endure a lot, a lot, of static here for her to extract the most useable science on the next go-round.

I am not hot at all but rather am baffled at your refusal to acknowledge basic facts or answer simple questions. The only static here continues to be you. This entire thread has otherwise been general consensus.

The OP registered rising ammonia readings for days after the transfer. The test kits were verified against her other aquarium.

You continue to insist that these were "false readings" and that there is no such thing as a "mini cycle" even after valid test results and numerous well informed people have explaining to you why.

Photos have no bearing here.

Garf I'm genuinely interested to know if you think dangerous ammonia was teetering here for 20+ plus days, barely saved yet again by low pH.

Nobody said that, not a single person.

 

[brandon429]

so your short answer is: 9 days

 

[brandon429]

have you ever seen 9 days ammonia control delay in any of Taricha's posts where live rock was present, a full reef tank of it?

have you seen studies where Dan reported enough ammonia in aquarium sand to overcome a 5 ppm command daily rate average, every day for nine days, where a small sublethal degree of ammonia above normal steady state hovered and took that long to come down?

 

[Garf]

have you ever seen 9 days ammonia control delay in any of Taricha's posts where live rock was present, a full reef tank of it?

have you seen studies where Dan reported enough ammonia in aquarium sand to overcome a 5 ppm command daily rate average, every day for nine days, where a small sublethal degree of ammonia above normal steady state hovered and took that long to come down?

Careful, soon you will be saying that people don't need to rinse their sand, lol. You know, the process that prevents mysterious tank crashes, but definitely not due to ammonia, that one.

 

[brandon429]

I can see you don't want to press it further that's cool. I'll await pics. we really don't have a way to verify either side.

the only way to verify it is when several patterned tank transfers are measured in a controlled manner, to chart the possibility/frequency of a dayslong delay for ammonia control.

if they ever find 3 days noncontrol I'll be floored/amazed. 9? never. that's my bet anyway.

until we have lots of results from test kits you and I both believe, we can't know fully what happened here other than what we see in pics.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I can see you don't want to press it further

People press and you change the argument, every single time. Wasn’t your position “clear in 15 minutes”? Isn’t your position that it can’t happen at all?

that's cool. I'll await pics. we really don't have a way to verify either side.

Photos have zero context here. This thread, the contents from numerous contributors and the test results are verification.

the only way to verify

until we have lots of results from test kits

It has verified in this thread and in others. You simply refuse to acknowledge it here, there or ever.

 

[MnFish1]

I can think of an easy way for ammonia to continue to be elevated - with varying effects on some fish. If acascade event occurs - whereby day by day there is more ammonia (a significant amount) - ammonia could easily be elevated for 9 days.

 

[Garf]

barely saved yet again by low pH

Low pH obviously reduces ammonia toxicity, however it can also reduce nitrification rates.
Then some reduce their lighting which reduces ammonia uptake via photosynthesis and reduces pH. Rocks are moved around taking them from optimal to not that, sand has all been mixed up. It seems just about any change can have an effect. Here's a pH / nitrifier paper, appears to be old fashion science;

Effects of acidification on nitrification and associated nitrous oxide emission in estuarine and coastal waters - Nature Communications

Acidification of estuarine and coastal water due to synergistic effects of human induced eutrophication and elevated atmospheric CO2 could inhibit nitrification, a vital link of nitrogen cycle, but increase the release of powerful greenhouse gas N2O.

www.nature.com

 

[brandon429]

no that doesn't apply to us. Nobody's cycle has been degraded by pH on this site. you have not seen that occur which is why the link you searched doesn't come from a cycling thread or even a reef tank.

 

[brandon429]

@alicia24
hey can u post one last pic of your setup

 

[Garf]

Nobody's cycle has been degraded by pH on this site

You appear to be very sure of that. I would not claim the opposite is definitely the case without a trusted person(s) carrying out some experiments. However, there is definitely a scientific basis for considering such effects. Why do you keep wanting to see the OPs tank? out of curiosity.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I’ve never seen any data on pH vs cycle time.

 

[brandon429]

Garf

We want to see cycling studies done in reef tanks, apples to apples work, like what Taricha and Dan do.

oceanic studies didn't transfer over to what reef tank sandbeds do, either.

 

[Lasse]

In freshwater - pH is normally seen as an key factor for good nitrification - however in fresh water lack of alkalinity will show up as low pH (below 7). In reality is not low pH that stop the nitrification - is lack of alkalinity as HCO3 and CO3. In planted aquaria that use addition of CO2 as a fertilizer you often are recommended to rise up the KH to over 2-3 before with help of HCO3. The CO2 press down the pH to around 6.5 but because you have an alkalinity above 2- 3 dKH ((around 1 mekv) the nitrification can go further This is well documented in the waste water treatment literature (and in planted aquaria literature) This article is rather good - but IMO they confuses the meaning of low pH and lack of alkalinity partly. My experience is that if the alkalinity is above 3 dKH (above 53 mg CaCO3/ L or above 1 meq), you can lower the pH (with the help of CO2) to below 6.5 and still maintain a high nitrification rate. I have seen the same in fish farms with high fish density (hence high CO2 content) As long as the alkalinity is high (and added continuously) the pH is not critical.

In saltwater with dKH above 3-4 . you will not have lower nitrification rate with lower pH - IMO

Sincerely Lasse

 

[BeanAnimal]

no that doesn't apply to us. Nobody's cycle has been degraded by pH on this site. you have not seen that occur which is why the link you searched doesn't come from a cycling thread or even a reef tank.

For something to be true it does not have to be verified by a thread on Reef2Reef and more importantly by one that has your seal of approval.

We are going around the barn again all because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the OPs tank had rising ammonia after the move. In the end, that fact (the rising ammonia) will not change regardless of the reason.

 

[Garf]

We want to see cycling studies done in reef tanks, apples to apples work, like what Taricha and Dan do.

So now people should be testing? Excellent.