Azedenkae
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2021
- Messages
- 2,448
- Reaction score
- 2,322
- Location
- Seattle
- What state or country do you live in
- Washington
Would you like to respond to this, @brandon429?
The official nitrite conference 2021
- Thread starter brandon429
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
No Aze I dont think anyone's ever reached toxicity. My link from post #2 is a totally valid sample of every cycle ever seen. its the full range: dry starts to live rock skip cycles to cured out kp aquatics ocean rock
none reached nitrite toxicity. I am legit curious to know if you've seen some.
also the part about benchmarking your test acceptance, how do you know stated API is right just going off api's track record? I believe the classic 2 ppm ammonia everyone doses to cannot build up lethal nitrite considering the surface area and dilutions found in all cycles. the bottle bac are so positively able, I've never seen a dead bottle in any of my cycling works. I know some exist, Dr Reef reported some and so did Taricha.
maybe if someone inputs thirty ppm ammonia it'll reach nitrite toxicity, who did that? link?
but personally we didnt account for that in the post #2 because it doesnt happen to us. we think each aquarium has a known cycle completion date before its assembled, based on boosters used. we think cycling has a very specific and calculable end date vs open ended, ranging.
(going off entrant details from the link in post #2 the bulk of cyclers have redundantly added more than one form of bac, that's another chief reason we dont fret over potential dead bottles of bac, we fret over nothing. the whole thread is about testless cycling if wanted)
I make a formal prediction on file that we will run that thread on post 2 out to 100 pages within a few more years and not once will a stalled cycled be linked.
it will literally be all happy cyclers and brook/uronema fish.
none reached nitrite toxicity. I am legit curious to know if you've seen some.
also the part about benchmarking your test acceptance, how do you know stated API is right just going off api's track record? I believe the classic 2 ppm ammonia everyone doses to cannot build up lethal nitrite considering the surface area and dilutions found in all cycles. the bottle bac are so positively able, I've never seen a dead bottle in any of my cycling works. I know some exist, Dr Reef reported some and so did Taricha.
maybe if someone inputs thirty ppm ammonia it'll reach nitrite toxicity, who did that? link?
but personally we didnt account for that in the post #2 because it doesnt happen to us. we think each aquarium has a known cycle completion date before its assembled, based on boosters used. we think cycling has a very specific and calculable end date vs open ended, ranging.
(going off entrant details from the link in post #2 the bulk of cyclers have redundantly added more than one form of bac, that's another chief reason we dont fret over potential dead bottles of bac, we fret over nothing. the whole thread is about testless cycling if wanted)
I make a formal prediction on file that we will run that thread on post 2 out to 100 pages within a few more years and not once will a stalled cycled be linked.
it will literally be all happy cyclers and brook/uronema fish.
Last edited:
Azedenkae
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2021
- Messages
- 2,448
- Reaction score
- 2,322
- Location
- Seattle
- What state or country do you live in
- Washington
That was not what I was asking...
Let me rephrase this. Do you think I believe that aquarists are likely to experience lethal levels of nitrite during the cycle?
You have one opening request. I do too, and mine is just for you to answer this simple question. I think knowing this before engaging in any debate is entirely valid.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
Do you think I believe that aquarists are likely to experience lethal levels of nitrite during the cycle
Yes I for sure thought that, why would you otherwise link articles about nitrite lethality in clownfish if that wasnt the inference. those were good reads by the way, I thought it was totally neutral at any degree.
what Im missing from your cycle posts is the start date, where they can confidently begin, and Im missing assurance.
we made an entire thread about total assurance a cycle can complete. When im reading about links that state nitrite may be toxic, I get no assurance and we lose time discussing fish disease issues which are so, so serious in new setups.
Yes I for sure thought that, why would you otherwise link articles about nitrite lethality in clownfish if that wasnt the inference. those were good reads by the way, I thought it was totally neutral at any degree.
what Im missing from your cycle posts is the start date, where they can confidently begin, and Im missing assurance.
we made an entire thread about total assurance a cycle can complete. When im reading about links that state nitrite may be toxic, I get no assurance and we lose time discussing fish disease issues which are so, so serious in new setups.
Last edited:
Azedenkae
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2021
- Messages
- 2,448
- Reaction score
- 2,322
- Location
- Seattle
- What state or country do you live in
- Washington
Okay. We can end this here then, because I don't believe that aquarists are likely to experience lethal levels of nitrite during the cycle. The articles I link are the ones to show the nitrite is NOT to really be worried about. I like the truth, so I always specify that there is truly a level that nitrite can be toxic or lethal, however I never suggest that anyone is likely to experience lethal levels of nitrite when cycling. I do think that it is possible to hit 25ppm nitrite though, due to misunderstandings in dosing ammonia or something similar.
Please confirm that you understand what I wrote above. Happy to rewrite it like I previously did if you have trouble comprehending the above paragraph.
If you do not believe the above, please post links to threads where I allegedly say that one is likely to reach lethal levels of nitrite during a cycle. Perhaps I mistakenly wrote so somewhere, though I doubt it. I am generally careful with my words. But yes, this is important to affirm the merit of this entire thread so please post links.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
it must have been semantics, I truly have never seen you imply nitrite was the one to ignore but that's clear above. I had literally taken away from every cycling co-interaction for a year straight that nitrite was to be tested, weighed and considered. I'm ok w that above.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
When new cyclers ask about nitrite, the only thing clearer for them than responding with a link about nitrite toxicity would be this
you do not have to own a nitrite test kit
or, you do not have to test for nitrite.
even this one: nitrite cannot harm any cycle
any chance for that type of clarity? I’ve never seen it stated that clearly before, might be even handier for new cyclers to kick out the param altogether than have to read a study on it, to see if their cycle will be harmed
we could tell them that by having only one tester on the param in the hobby, any levels they report are subject to variance. They can’t know what their nitrite actually is
it seems much clearer and more accurate to state we don’t need to know anything but ammonia control to know the end date for a cycle.
ps: can we get a joint sub committee on the must dose up to 2 ppm ammonia thing or is that a total no go. If that’s required by you can you at least let them know that ammonia movement from 2 ppm to .25 equals ready, it’d be nice for ten thousand new cyclers not to consider that as a stall and then go buy more bottled bac in response. Once we clear up nitrite, how much ammonia must be moved down, and what constitutes zero/ready, this board will stand far apart from the others on cycle umpiring with clear and repeatable means in place.
***when our readers go to a reef show/convention/macna etc we want them to instantly tie in anything they read on cycling here with the rows and rows of full reef tanks that had no trouble meeting the start date on time. That’s the ultimate goal for clarity: Every single form of cycling whether dry rocks or live rock skip cycles can have an exacting start date.
No reef board on the internet says it that clearly. we can, though. I like using reef conventions as a neutral cycling party in the efforts to streamline how we advise new cyclers. Those conventions who never have stalls set a clear bar we can attain in advising ideal cycling procedure. They at the conventions seem to have streamlined what parameters are measured before carrying bioload, they’ve mastered completely consistent start dates in both live rock and dry rock + bioload setups, and they have a completely successful survival rate with all that timeliness.
If our readers feel that each cycling aquarium has a varying start date where ammonia must be zero after being dosed to 2 ppm multiple times (or even once) nitrite zero, and have some degree of nitrate then that’s polar opposite of what’s going on in the big picture. This set of qualifiers is what every single reef board on the web advises, it’d be nice to stand out from that and match what happens in the big picture real world of completely controlled cycling.
you do not have to own a nitrite test kit
or, you do not have to test for nitrite.
even this one: nitrite cannot harm any cycle
any chance for that type of clarity? I’ve never seen it stated that clearly before, might be even handier for new cyclers to kick out the param altogether than have to read a study on it, to see if their cycle will be harmed
we could tell them that by having only one tester on the param in the hobby, any levels they report are subject to variance. They can’t know what their nitrite actually is
it seems much clearer and more accurate to state we don’t need to know anything but ammonia control to know the end date for a cycle.
ps: can we get a joint sub committee on the must dose up to 2 ppm ammonia thing or is that a total no go. If that’s required by you can you at least let them know that ammonia movement from 2 ppm to .25 equals ready, it’d be nice for ten thousand new cyclers not to consider that as a stall and then go buy more bottled bac in response. Once we clear up nitrite, how much ammonia must be moved down, and what constitutes zero/ready, this board will stand far apart from the others on cycle umpiring with clear and repeatable means in place.
***when our readers go to a reef show/convention/macna etc we want them to instantly tie in anything they read on cycling here with the rows and rows of full reef tanks that had no trouble meeting the start date on time. That’s the ultimate goal for clarity: Every single form of cycling whether dry rocks or live rock skip cycles can have an exacting start date.
No reef board on the internet says it that clearly. we can, though. I like using reef conventions as a neutral cycling party in the efforts to streamline how we advise new cyclers. Those conventions who never have stalls set a clear bar we can attain in advising ideal cycling procedure. They at the conventions seem to have streamlined what parameters are measured before carrying bioload, they’ve mastered completely consistent start dates in both live rock and dry rock + bioload setups, and they have a completely successful survival rate with all that timeliness.
If our readers feel that each cycling aquarium has a varying start date where ammonia must be zero after being dosed to 2 ppm multiple times (or even once) nitrite zero, and have some degree of nitrate then that’s polar opposite of what’s going on in the big picture. This set of qualifiers is what every single reef board on the web advises, it’d be nice to stand out from that and match what happens in the big picture real world of completely controlled cycling.
Last edited:
Nitrite should barely be part of the "how to cycle" conversation anymore. Academically, its good to know the science of the aquarium cycle. But in practice, all you really need to test for is ammonia. Once ammonia is processing, the rest will follow.
We need to continue dropping the barriers to this hobby to help grow and sustain it. Cycling continues to be a major barrier of confusion and uncertainty when in truth, it's one of the few constants we deal with. There should not be this much ambiguity surrounding it.
We need to continue dropping the barriers to this hobby to help grow and sustain it. Cycling continues to be a major barrier of confusion and uncertainty when in truth, it's one of the few constants we deal with. There should not be this much ambiguity surrounding it.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
Agreed fully
if we watch this board’s new tank forum each day, or any board’s cycling/new tank forum, the newer approaches are almost non existent. Everyone still toils over nitrite and what .25 ammonia means regarding a start date (Because YouTube videos tell them cycles can stall, and forum peers perhaps even moreso than the vids)
for example I scanned all of reefcentral + nano-reef.com just now / cursory quick scan / and there is a focus still on nitrite testing vs advisors relaying Randy’s input regarding its neutrality. Forums are grossly lagging behind what the retail world is doing and the result is less overall control over the reef, and more loss just slightly delayed.
www.reef2reef.com
that disease link is so precise, so succinct, such an accurate picture of how disease works I made that the #2 read now in our cycling thread even before we discuss ammonia.
an ideal change for the hobby that will result in more animals retained vs wasted will be when a new cycler is doing initial planning research, they get the newest and most accurate information vs dated information about stalling. If we discuss nitrite and ammonia control in the new ways often enough and with the right key search terms, we will effect change in the market. The gap between buyers cycling rules and sellers cycling rules will lessen and the new cyclers will be more empowered.
since there aren’t any examples of a failed or stalled cycle, but there’s a million examples of disease loss soon after, I say we ride that wave a while. Let’s study where the examples exist.
if we watch this board’s new tank forum each day, or any board’s cycling/new tank forum, the newer approaches are almost non existent. Everyone still toils over nitrite and what .25 ammonia means regarding a start date (Because YouTube videos tell them cycles can stall, and forum peers perhaps even moreso than the vids)
for example I scanned all of reefcentral + nano-reef.com just now / cursory quick scan / and there is a focus still on nitrite testing vs advisors relaying Randy’s input regarding its neutrality. Forums are grossly lagging behind what the retail world is doing and the result is less overall control over the reef, and more loss just slightly delayed.
Treating ICH in a display (reef tank)?
4 years into the hobby and I'm unfortunately faced with my first ever Ich outbreak. I have a large tank (220g) with large fish. SPS dominant. I noticed a few days ago that the two Clarkii clowns were starting to become elusive and stick to the rear of the rocks, which was abnormal. Yesterday...
www.reef2reef.com
that disease link is so precise, so succinct, such an accurate picture of how disease works I made that the #2 read now in our cycling thread even before we discuss ammonia.
an ideal change for the hobby that will result in more animals retained vs wasted will be when a new cycler is doing initial planning research, they get the newest and most accurate information vs dated information about stalling. If we discuss nitrite and ammonia control in the new ways often enough and with the right key search terms, we will effect change in the market. The gap between buyers cycling rules and sellers cycling rules will lessen and the new cyclers will be more empowered.
since there aren’t any examples of a failed or stalled cycle, but there’s a million examples of disease loss soon after, I say we ride that wave a while. Let’s study where the examples exist.
Last edited:
"Forums lagging behind retail world".
I'm not sure this is universally true. You are speaking of MACNA type vendors etc...however the vast majority of LFS sticking to old cycle rules and relentlessly pushing bottled bac regardless of cycle timeline is part of the problem. In fact, it really starts there. The majority of new reefers are not reefing forum users or MACNA attendees. They simply follow the advice of their LFS.
I'm not sure this is universally true. You are speaking of MACNA type vendors etc...however the vast majority of LFS sticking to old cycle rules and relentlessly pushing bottled bac regardless of cycle timeline is part of the problem. In fact, it really starts there. The majority of new reefers are not reefing forum users or MACNA attendees. They simply follow the advice of their LFS.
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
I'll bite, well nibble.
@brandon429 has a laser focus on fish and other livestock health.
In this he is 100% accurate that Nitrite is a non factor for the health and safety of livestock in a reef tank.
Let me make the case for why a nitrite test is worth doing, or at least worth having.
1) To let you know when you can start testing for NO3: When there is NO2, an NO3 test is almost meaningless.
2) To demonstrate actual classical nitrification: a ton of things eat ammonia - algae, coral, anything photosynthetic, heterotroph bacteria if they have a carbon source ( which algae also provide). So Ammonia will go down in any system with the lights on. If that's all you care about, then fine - your fish and coral will be happy. But if you actually want to see if your system is doing bona fide nitrification, then you need to see ammonia go down, and NO2 be produced.
3) some systems manage to keep a persistent low, but well quantifiable level of NO2. Lasse and Dan_P have found this to be the case in their systems. If you are wanting to fine tune your NO3 to keep say 1-2ppm, then correcting for a tenth or so NO2 can dial this in properly.
To repeat: None of these things have a bit to do with keeping fish and coral alive. If that's the extent your concern - and for any brand new hobbyist, it is - then NO2 can be ignored except to say NO3 tests will be garbage for a while.
Regarding point 2), Brandon, just imagine me being the constant devil on your shoulder that every time you declare a tank is cycled, I say - "actually he just means it eats ammonia. To show traditional cycling is established requires seeing ammonia go down and NO2 go up. Without that, you just know something ate ammonia, and a lot of things eat ammonia."
( I wouldn't actually do that, it would be exhausting for everyone. So you'll just have to use your imagination
)
@brandon429 has a laser focus on fish and other livestock health.
In this he is 100% accurate that Nitrite is a non factor for the health and safety of livestock in a reef tank.
Let me make the case for why a nitrite test is worth doing, or at least worth having.
1) To let you know when you can start testing for NO3: When there is NO2, an NO3 test is almost meaningless.
2) To demonstrate actual classical nitrification: a ton of things eat ammonia - algae, coral, anything photosynthetic, heterotroph bacteria if they have a carbon source ( which algae also provide). So Ammonia will go down in any system with the lights on. If that's all you care about, then fine - your fish and coral will be happy. But if you actually want to see if your system is doing bona fide nitrification, then you need to see ammonia go down, and NO2 be produced.
3) some systems manage to keep a persistent low, but well quantifiable level of NO2. Lasse and Dan_P have found this to be the case in their systems. If you are wanting to fine tune your NO3 to keep say 1-2ppm, then correcting for a tenth or so NO2 can dial this in properly.
To repeat: None of these things have a bit to do with keeping fish and coral alive. If that's the extent your concern - and for any brand new hobbyist, it is - then NO2 can be ignored except to say NO3 tests will be garbage for a while.
Regarding point 2), Brandon, just imagine me being the constant devil on your shoulder that every time you declare a tank is cycled, I say - "actually he just means it eats ammonia. To show traditional cycling is established requires seeing ammonia go down and NO2 go up. Without that, you just know something ate ammonia, and a lot of things eat ammonia."
( I wouldn't actually do that, it would be exhausting for everyone. So you'll just have to use your imagination
)
elysics
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,591
- Reaction score
- 1,590
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
Usually I just keep my mouth shut, live and let live, but this irks me.
With whose authority do you claim officiality? What kind of official are you? Moderator of this forum? Public face of some institute or research group or company or other public entity?
Because the headline reads like this thread or "conference" is supported and endorsed by one of those.
Or do you just claim random titles for yourself because they make things sound important?
With whose authority do you claim officiality? What kind of official are you? Moderator of this forum? Public face of some institute or research group or company or other public entity?
Because the headline reads like this thread or "conference" is supported and endorsed by one of those.
Or do you just claim random titles for yourself because they make things sound important?
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
Elysics
I use work threads to make and test claims, this allows for open scrutiny which is why I love work thread analyses
work threads= hundreds of friends willing to subject their whole reef to our test claims that oppose a majority rule or practice, then we link those outcomes in places where posters say X can’t be done and await commentary.
of course the title is to bring out skeptics this is how I proof claims, Cells comments and Tarichas comments are carving up the right angles we take back to our massive work threads and try and make them even more predictable.
Elysics let me ask you this: do you have any counter threads or links to add to the conference because it’s looking like the average cycling Joe gets to ignore nitrite for a good while…let me know if your post had some backing or chemistry inputs
this is a conference because I knew that title would snap natural skeptics and it’d bring out their best counter claims, so that if any of my claims are false they’d be quick to post data vs a writers critique ~
the link in post #2 is one of three, and that link alone is rather active using actual reef tanks testing positive for nitrite, the scrollable patterns back up the fact that nobody needs to know about nitrite to keep animals alive as captioned above. If anyone had fresh new input on the matter, here’s a nice place to mention it
I use work threads to make and test claims, this allows for open scrutiny which is why I love work thread analyses
work threads= hundreds of friends willing to subject their whole reef to our test claims that oppose a majority rule or practice, then we link those outcomes in places where posters say X can’t be done and await commentary.
of course the title is to bring out skeptics this is how I proof claims, Cells comments and Tarichas comments are carving up the right angles we take back to our massive work threads and try and make them even more predictable.
Elysics let me ask you this: do you have any counter threads or links to add to the conference because it’s looking like the average cycling Joe gets to ignore nitrite for a good while…let me know if your post had some backing or chemistry inputs
this is a conference because I knew that title would snap natural skeptics and it’d bring out their best counter claims, so that if any of my claims are false they’d be quick to post data vs a writers critique ~
the link in post #2 is one of three, and that link alone is rather active using actual reef tanks testing positive for nitrite, the scrollable patterns back up the fact that nobody needs to know about nitrite to keep animals alive as captioned above. If anyone had fresh new input on the matter, here’s a nice place to mention it
Last edited:
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
Also waiting to hear how accurate these api tests are for nitrite. What finicky adjusts must the tester make in order to not falsely detect free nitrite to a small degree, forever, like the ammonia version
is there any possibility that since api is the only nitrite testing source for literally all nitrite claims posted online we drift towards trusting it since there’s no other proofs avail?
is there any possibility that since api is the only nitrite testing source for literally all nitrite claims posted online we drift towards trusting it since there’s no other proofs avail?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 6,970
- Reaction score
- 10,769
- What state or country do you live in
- Mississippi
I just took it as sarcasm. Or an over-the-top "let's talk about this".
I've never used API nitrite. I've used Red Sea marine NO2/NO3 kit, and hanna ULR nitrite. Dan figured out a way to use the red sea NO3 pro reagents to read nitrite correctly.
They give results consistent with the amounts of oxidized ammonia.
Does API report huge scary numbers?
I mean, it should be easy to put an upper limit on how much NO2 there can possibly be based on the ammonia dosed.
