I haven't been to river city, I'll have to check that one out this weekend! I frequent Austin Aqua Dome a bunch, I live like 10 mins from there. So far all my livestock (aside from the order I have coming in tomorrow, which is from WWC) is from aqua dome
raise who what?its ok. I'll raise you this:
Sustained Ammonia spikes are misreads
The reason you think your reef tank can’t control its ammonia is due to false training from old cycling science. That and you don’t own a seneye on the tank in question: if you did, you wouldn’t ever think your ammonia was out of control...www.reef2reef.com
seven pages of totally false panics with actual misreading kits and pics of the kits. I was hoping we could add yours to upcoming page eight lol
some of those good ones are years old tanks. I like to collect instances when test kit readings for a crashed cycle don't line up with the tank pics/symptoms in the fish.
there's a going whisper in chemistry circles that all these tanks/all future false cycles I'll post in/ are secretly very full of ammonia (the non digital test kits are correct as seen) and only the lucky pH of the system prevents it from becoming toxic. reason I don't believe that: pH is not consistent for ten years across tanks, but stacking rocks in a tank of warm moving water having been inoculated with filter bacteria that oxidize ammonia sure is consistent across tanks. we all copy means and methods that oxidize ammonia; we do not copy means and methods that control pH in everyone's tank. I've never asked any cycle staller if they live in a crowded apartment, no open windows, gas heating, low alk water OR if they live in a huge home, open windows, electric heating, 1 occupant, very high alk water (presents opposing pH extremes)
so I don't buy the lucky pH protection claim. I buy the all stalled cycles are false misreads (or misinterpretation) claim.
www.reef2reef.com
I have to agree with you on that which is why I have the attitude of "playing things safe" when it comes to cycling. Yeah, it sounds boring and archaic, but I also believe in science. Not pseudo science where some research is done, lots of questions remain and people just accept the theory as fact. "This MAY do this" isn't good enough. That's not how it's supposed to work and when the complete picture is revealed through the actual scientific method via due diligence and repeatable, peer reviewed results, I'll happily accept that as fact.
As various posters have said - it is true that many people do not perform tests correctly - or interpret them correctly - which can lead to false conclusions. Nitrite, for example is tested but is non-toxic in a reef pH but can be useful in following a cycle. There are pages of debate about whether this makes sense or not. Pages of debate about API vs other tests, etc etc.
I agree on that. Yes, simply having living fish in a tank at the moment isn’t a great indicator of the tank being healthy long-term as many fish can somewhat tolerate toxic levels of ammonia. That doesn’t necessarily mean those fish will thrive for weeks, months or years in that slightly toxic environment. We ideally want undetectable levels of ammonia. My concern with testing cycling status is determining whether or not the cycle has actually completed or if it has “stalled out” due to some required building block momentarily depleting and testing at a bad moment that gives favorable but temporary results which leads new reefers to adding livestock prematurely. I wonder if we’re seeing similar happen all the time like with carbon dosing where nitrate reduction completely stops due to phosphate levels being depleted, allowing nitrate levels to actually rise until a sufficient level of phosphates becomes accessible. Could the same hold true for let’s say, ammonia and cycling? I’m legitimately curious.
Yeah they have a HUGE coral selection, they're beautiful.
