How I got my "DEAD" tank to cycle in 1 week

[Greenmaster]

I have not been against you from the beginning. I asked honest questions. You indicated in the original post that part of the reason for your rapid cycle was the large amount of homemade "live rock" you used, and I didn't understand your use of the term, since it certainly wasn't live. Then I stated my concern about your assertion that your new tank's ability to process some ammonia meant it was fully cycled. Your thread title indicates that you feel the tank went from nothing to fully cycled in one week. I asked for more information because I didn't understand how that could be. I asked if I was missing something.

I believe that my homemade rock was not the biggest contributor to my quick cycle, I believe that it was a help but I believe that the biggest contributor is the second thing on my list, the ceramic pellets/cylinders/stars they are sitting in the pipes that my water drains through and it tumbles over the media providing good air exchange and lots of water flow.

Most fishless cycles are considered cycled when they can process a certain quantity of ammonia into nitrate over a 24 hour period. That is the reason we only dose ammonia. I believe it went from nothing to cycled in less then a week, as I believe that cycled fits the definition stated above.

You then stated I had missed the fact that you added an off-the-shelf bacterial supplement and ammonia. I certainly didn't "miss" that and found it insulting that you would insinuate that I somehow got lost in your very "complex" scheme; get a dead tank with dead rock, add some ammonia and bacteria, then test the heck out of it.

Well that is close but a little bit off. It wasn't quite clear what part you were missing as you didn't state the parts you understood. I felt like you didn't understand either how my tank got the bacteria or ammonia. I realize that my calling my dry rock "homemade live rock" was kind of confusing and was an error on my part. I thought you were under the impression that I believed the bacteria was already on my rocks before I added it. So I stated that I added the bacteria. The only other factor in a cycle that I am aware of is the ammonia/nitrite/nitrate. So just to be on the safe side I stated both. If it was just as simple as you state then others would have been doing the same thing before now. That's why I asked for questions... so someone who was more interested would be able to have guidance to try this as well.

You keep asserting that the tank is "ready" but have no plans to test that except to put more ammonia in the tank and see what happens. You've already established that the bacteria you have established can process ammonia. Adding objective data points with an ammonia load tomorrow will further quantify the amount of ammonia your tank can process, but it does not prove your assertions, namely that the tank is fully cycled and ready for 20-30 fish. The only way to prove these theories is to add 20-30 fish and continue to measure all your parameters.

What other sign do you need to be able to tell if you tank is cycled other then having the tank process ammonia? I'm not sure if your and my definition of cycle is the same... what other parameters are you aware of?

I need to look up the word "research?" Really? It may surprise you to know that I have a fair amount of experience with research. I happen to know that the lowest level of evidence is anecdotal. That is where someone says, "Hey, I did this once and it worked for me." That is the best you could hope for with your current "research" methods. Where is the randomized control trial?

Well research can be defined in many ways... RESEARCH: Inquiry, a search for knowledge. Is the one I was hopping you would stumble upon. I figured you were versed in some field of science. I also noticed right from the start that you were strongly against my post. I have been enjoying this debate that is the reason I posted this quote: "Great minds always bring forth the truth no mater what side they are on."

I am not against change. I was stunned when I got back into saltwater aquaria after 20 years that nothing I learned before meant anything. Undergravel filter? Gone! Damsels to cycle? Passé! SPS coral impossible to keep? Debunked! The hobby continues to grow by leaps and bounds. I am not afraid of change. I am afraid of someone who posts that his tank is "cycled" after one week and has no real evidence to back that up.

Again saying that my numbers mean nothing... Many of the changes in the saltwater aquaria world have been driven by people like you and me who try something then go to places like this or to aquarium clubs and debate what has been tried. It's best if there is controversy, and it is a new approach, not new products or completely new ideas, just a flip on something that is already done. The two "Great minds" (I'm just quoting... I have an adequate mind) debate in open and the people gather around. Some try it so they can add to the pool of knowledge (starting small) that is there if others have success then the new method starts to gain ground. If others fail then the idea could stop dead... even if the failures were because of mistakes made in the setup process, and the idea was a good advancement.

Are your ideas revolutionary? Well, let's see, you bought a couple of pre-packaged bottles of bacteria off the shelves of your local fish stores. Seems that since there are several brands of bottled bacteria, you're not the first to come up with the idea of using it. Adding ammonia to the tank to begin a cycle? It's been done before. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking the fact that you were able to get your parameters to zero in a week. I'm just frustrated that you talk about your "results" and your cycled tank, but are unable to prove the results. I haven't said that what you claim is not possible, only that it is completely unproven and it appears it will stay that way.

I never said they were revolutionary ideas. But this is one of the reasons I posted here.
"2. Posting this as "research" and indicating that it may be a way to help people who want to cycle without fish (which is a great goal) but are too impatient to wait for a regular cycle (which is unfortunately common)..."
You then stated that it may crash tanks. I have in no way stated that this is bullet proof or that this is the best way. All I have done is found a way that worked for me and shared the results with the forums in hope that someone would feel inspired to try it themselves and perhaps find another way to cycle and possibly advance the hobby in this area. I also know that there may be problems associated with this setup that won't manifest themselves for 6 months to 5 years. Like for example a deep sand bed, or even the ceramic media. This is true research. Not corporate research as there is not much money in this. But "garage scientists" attempting to make their hobby better.

In short, Greenmaster, there is nothing you can do at this point to prove that your "system" works. If you went out and put 30 fish in your tank tomorrow and they did well, it would give more evidence that your ideas were not completely off base. However, in research, an N of one is never statistically significant. I would not immediately discount your work, but I would not use this method on my next tank, either. I would wait for other people to try it and have success. As the number of successful trials increases, so does the significance of the research.

On the other hand, what if you added 30 fish to the tank tomorrow and they all died? Would that mean that nothing you have done worked and that the whole method is flawed? No. It would be in keeping with the experience of many other reefers who went too far to fast, but it would really not prove anything. Again, the N of one is not significant.

I understand that you need proof far beyond what I am capable of. And I hope that one day there will be enough information available that you or someone else would look at it and go, ya that probably works, instead of saying, I doubt that this works and you shouldn't talk about it for fear that someone may act irresponsibly on the information and cause major issues with their tank.

Alas, however, there will be no proving of your methods with this build. You will introduce a CUC 2-3 months after setting up your tank (far longer than most people wait) and we will be left with a thread that says, "I took my tank from dead to fully cycled in one week" and absolutely no evidence to back it up.

There are ways that I could dismantle my tank or "clean" the tank so as to kill all that is in it and let it sit dry for a while then when I am ready I could do the tests again. Also you are saying that the evidence of my ammonia being removed doesn't qualify as evidence at all... if you had said, with only minor circumstantial evidence to back it up, then I would have no issue with it. But to state that there is "...absolutely no evidence to back it up." seems kinda short sighted. (again possibly a disagreement on what a cycled tank means in the context of my post)

One other thing that I am curious about: Why the rush to cycle the tank when you aren't introducing any livestock for a couple of months? You could have gone with more traditional methods and your tank would have fully cycled by the time you started to stock it.

I did the tests for multiple reasons.
1. Because I thought I would be able to have a quick cycle and wanted to test my theory.
2. So I could see how much ammonia my tank could process on a continual basis to help me determine what my max bioload would be.
3. Because I work as a milk delivery man and miss experimentation and challenges.
4. Because I don't have the money to buy the apex controller and fish right now and I want to be doing something with my tank. (see number 2)
I posted my results here because of a friend who said I should share it.

I wish you the best. I have not called you names and I do not intend to do so now. I apologize if this thread has gotten under my skin more than most. It was not my intention to be rude.

You either called me "Irresponsible." or you said that my actions would cause someone to be irresponsible. Either way with the positioning of it in the post it seemed directed at me. I'm glad it has gotten under you skin. It has cause for a good debate with plenty of information on both sides. If it weren't for people being opposed there would be a lot less thought put into things. As well it would be way more likely for someone to miss interpret this thread and act irresponsibly. Rudeness comes from both sides as when we feel offended we have the need to fight back... human nature... one of the things I don't control very well. I also (obviously) get offended fairly easily when being told I am wrong.

 

[Rocdoc]

:beer:

You and I have gone back and forth too long on this, my friend. I would have liked to have heard more opinions regarding potential testing methods, things we may have overlooked, or other considerations. I did not mean to derail your thread. Hopefully some smarter folks than I will look more closely at your results and weigh in on your methods. This is the way that research goes. You develop a hypothesis (that a tank can be cycled in a week), then design an experiment, carry out the experiment, present your data, and then have others critique (not the same thing as criticize) your results. You and others then either modify your hypothesis or continue testing until your ideas are either proven or discarded.

Keep up the work on this. I still urge caution in regards to "publishing" claims that may be misinterpreted by the many members of this forum who are new to the hobby and have too little patience to let things happen in a more traditional fashion.

Once you can add a large and complex bioload (not just ammonia) to a system that was dry a week before and measure those results, you will have a better indication of whether your ideas work or not. Your results will always be subject to debate and interpretation, and I hope that you will have some bright folks evaluating your progress when you do it.

I'd love to hear other people's opinions regarding your ideas, so I'll sit back, shut up, and hope more people will join in the discussion that you and I have dominated for too long.

Good luck with the ammonia experiment today, and be sure to post your resuls.

Warm Regards,
Bryan

 

[HighlandReefer]

Greenmaster,

Since your tank appears to be able to handle ammonia, perhaps the next test would be to see if it can handle what is going to be added when you add 30 or so fish to it and that will be nitrate and phosphate. If these levels climb too high after adding 20-30 fish quickly, This will prevent you from adding coral which I assume is your goal at one point. I assume most hobbyists goal in this forum is to have a reef tank & not a fish only tank with invertebrates. If this is the case, then a completely cycled tank can handle this.

In other words, you may be able to add 30 fish or so very quickly without ammonia problems, but it may end up taking your system longer if the nitrate and phosphate levels climb and have to be reduced compared to going slow where the levels remain in the recommended guidelines. Just something to think about.

 

[Greenmaster]

My nitrates are taken care of already... it's the phosphates that I can't dose/test.

The ammonia will be added in 30 min and the final results will be posted in 25 hours.

 

[cr reef]

I'm going to give my .02 on this but maybe it's only .01 as I'm not a scientist or chemist.............

Having read the whole thread, I believe you two are talking about 2 different "cycles" in the sense his system can handle the removal of ammonia, then it's through it's first cycle. I think most of us (in reefing) think of a cycle as being able to introduce fish and corals.......once a system can handle the removal of ammonia, then you introduce fish and their excrements start a whole new bio load, in turn starting a different phase of growth organisms, bacterial...... (someone help me here)

The bottom line, two different thinkings on cycle, when I was doing fish only the removal/lack of ammonia in the system meant I was ready to introduce my fish. That being said, now as a reefer this wouldn't be enough for me to think I was completely finished with a cycle.

Hope this makes sense

 

[lisafoster]

I am going to gve a simple comment you should not be giving this advice out especially when people who are new to this hobby and most are impatient. The only way that you could prove your theory is if you dump 10 to 20 fish into your tank and see if they survive. You have not done this you are giving the excuse that your controller is not here is silly. Maybe on paper you may think your theory would work. I would tell you to put your "research" to the test but I would not want to see a bunch of livestock perish in your tank. Slow down this is the only way to go for success in the long run

 

[chimmike]

frankly I think 10-20 fish would survive. Look at the volume of water available to dilue the ammonia while it is broken down by whatever bacteria is available.

Challenging him to do so is not of any consequence to the material idea behind this thread.

If he was able to test phosphates and nitrates as well as ammonia this could prove to be some very interesting data. Obviously he's not a lab and asking him to do this is beyond his reach. He did put forth a highly controversial idea as the constant mantra is "patience, a cycle takes weeks" has been held by the general hobby masses for quite a while.

Why would this not work? Let's consider this. Live rock mixed with dead rock to "cure" in a barrell. Instead of changing the water, let the ammonia sit, allowing bacteria to grow to break it down. Fill the tank, place this LR in there, and you probably have somewhat of a bacterial colony. Granted it's not perfect, but the addition of a fish or two could help 'specialize' the bacteria further to streamline breakdown of the harmful chemicals?

Needs to be more research than I have the ability to do. I'm by no means a scientist of any sort.

 

[lisafoster]

It may work out fine but putting this kind of advise on this forum without testing it with more than test kits and saying the tank is fully cycled and ready to add fish is irresponsible. He made the claim his tank is fully cycled where is the proof.

 

[albano]

+

+

it may work out fine but putting this kind of advise on this forum without testing it with more than test kits and saying the tank is fully cycled and ready to add fish is irresponsible. he made the claim his tank is fully cycled where is the proof.

+1

 

[bertoni]

That would be a good question... how much ammonia does an average 2-3" fish with 1 heavy feeding per day produce in 24 hours?

That is indeed the question, but 2 ppm might be a fairly light load. Some who has quarantined fish and depended on Amquel and water changes might be able to help some, although the numbers would be for an underfed fish.

 

[one4gatr]

It may work out fine but putting this kind of advise on this forum without testing it with more than test kits and saying the tank is fully cycled and ready to add fish is irresponsible. He made the claim his tank is fully cycled where is the proof.

Lisa... Well I hope anyone with half a brain would read the responses in this thread and be wary of trying to replicate it.... That includes newbies. But thankfully this isnt in the newbie area lol...

I at one point thought I had cycled my tank in record time but found out later I was sorely mistaken. And sadly the data here is so wrought with issues it will be impossible to back track and confirm or deny Greenmaster's assertion that his tank is completely cycled and ready for livestock in one week. Our tanks go through many cycles in their lifetimes and parameters change at times for no apparent reason. In the end we are attempting to replicate conditions that happen naturally in our world but at times even our best attempts fall short.

We will NEVER be able to perfectly replicate what happens in nature but I think we can all agree that is our ultimate goal. With that said in nature a cycle doesnt happen in a week. And while I applaud anyones attempt to "revolutionize" the hobby I will stick by the tried and true method and exercise patience.

Greenmaster... I truly wish you well with your project. You need to have thick skin when you make assertions that go against tried and true practices and you definitely need to be able to back up your claims with tons of data or be prepared to get flamed. You said you enjoyed debating and I can promise you with this thread you will likely get your fill of it. Good Luck!

Mark

 

[Rocdoc]

That is indeed the question, but 2 ppm might be a fairly light load. Some who has quarantined fish and depended on Amquel and water changes might be able to help some, although the numbers would be for an underfed fish.

Sorry to chime back in, but I was thinking about the ammonia issue. The problem with the design of your experiment today is that you add a bolus of ammonia and then track how long it takes for your tank to nitrify it. Obviously, livestock produce more than just ammonia, but for the sake of simplicity, let's just look at that. Obviously, adding 20-30 fish does not produce a bolus of ammonia. It produces an exponentially increasing amount of ammonia and other wastes. Your tank with no CUC cannot start the process of breaking down detritus easily, so the waste in the tank today will still be there tomorrow when your inhabitants add more waste.

Not trying to stir up hard feelings as I've already said my piece. Just pointing out the obvious fact that your experimental design is oversimplified. Maybe a dosing pump used to add increasing amounts of ammonia over a 2-3 day period would be a better model, but then that begs the question, was your tank cycled before or did the continued addition of increasing ammonia cycle it in more of a traditional fashion?

 

[lisafoster]

Lisa... Well I hope anyone with half a brain would read the responses in this thread and be wary of trying to replicate it.... That includes newbies. But thankfully this isnt in the newbie area lol..."

No offense but it has nothing to do with having half a brain. Alot of newbies look for advice on this forum and lots are looking for a quick way to cycle you just should be careful making claims. Also why wouldn't newies look here? When I joined my first reefers club when I stared I searched all over the whole site. I think taking alot of advice is at your own risk and you should really research things before you attempt things with your own tank. I just find it irritating when someone who is making claims when they have not seen the experiment through. Then again I get irritated easily
"

 

[cccapt]

I think a few important things that happened here were left out. When he originally made this rock, he put it out in the ocean to cure for a few weeks, put it in his tank and added a few fish which promptly died from a very high pH.
The tank was later filled with freshwater for a few weeks to help cure the rock and settle the high pH issues.
To say this was started with "dead" rock may be true, but unless it was sterilized after it was cured in the ocean, setup with saltwater in the tank along with fish and then cured again in freshwater, I would think there was some organic matter in/on the rock which may have had an affect on his results.

 

[Rocdoc]

Having read the whole thread, I believe you two are talking about 2 different "cycles" in the sense his system can handle the removal of ammonia, then it's through it's first cycle. I think most of us (in reefing) think of a cycle as being able to introduce fish and corals.......once a system can handle the removal of ammonia, then you introduce fish and their excrements start a whole new bio load, in turn starting a different phase of growth organisms, bacterial...... (someone help me here)

The bottom line, two different thinkings on cycle, when I was doing fish only the removal/lack of ammonia in the system meant I was ready to introduce my fish. That being said, now as a reefer this wouldn't be enough for me to think I was completely finished with a cycle.

Hope this makes sense

I see your point here. I have two issues, though (well, I have lots of issues, but that's between me and my therapist):

First, when a newbie sees the word "cycle" that is read as, "time to dump in 6 tangs, three mandarins, a nurse shark, and four groupers." So I was concerned someone would read the original post, follow the instructions, then dump in lots of fish, likely contributing to failure.

Second, I was using Greenmaster's definition of "cycled," namely that his tank was capable of handling the bioload of 20-30 fish after one week. If he had said, "I had a dead tank and now it processes ammonia," that would have been one thing. But he called it cycled and indicated it was ready for a large bioload. That's a completely different issue and the one I was questioning.

Lisa... Well I hope anyone with half a brain would read the responses in this thread and be wary of trying to replicate it.... That includes newbies. But thankfully this isnt in the newbie area lol..."

No offense but it has nothing to do with having half a brain. Alot of newbies look for advice on this forum and lots are looking for a quick way to cycle you just should be careful making claims. Also why wouldn't newies look here? When I joined my first reefers club when I stared I searched all over the whole site. I think taking alot of advice is at your own risk and you should really research things before you attempt things with your own tank. I just find it irritating when someone who is making claims when they have not seen the experiment through. Then again I get irritated easily
"

Uh, Lisa. . . Where were you when I was taking my lumps on page 2 of this thread? This was exacly the point I was trying to get across. Don't post half-completed research that is missing a very important part (namely results) in a forum that could be followed by someone who doesn't know better.

 

[cr reef]

Rocdoc,

I agree with what you're saying, I would hate to see someone new take this advice as true and tested. I was just trying to see both side to this discussion. I personally would have liked to see him put a group of fish in and see the effects two weeks or so later and then start this thread.

This way there would be a little more accurate information on what was happening with the tank and if it could indeed process the ammonia, nitrites and nitrates.......

I think as you said the thread should have been title something in the lines of

"I had a dead tank and now it processes ammonia"

 

[lisafoster]

Uh, Lisa. . . Where were you when I was taking my lumps on page 2 of this thread? This was exacly the point I was trying to get across. Don't post half-completed research that is missing a very important part (namely results) in a forum that could be followed by someone who doesn't know better.

LOL. Sorry I am always late to the game.

 

[one4gatr]

Lisa... Well I hope anyone with half a brain would read the responses in this thread and be wary of trying to replicate it.... That includes newbies. But thankfully this isnt in the newbie area lol..."

No offense but it has nothing to do with having half a brain. Alot of newbies look for advice on this forum and lots are looking for a quick way to cycle you just should be careful making claims. Also why wouldn't newies look here? When I joined my first reefers club when I stared I searched all over the whole site. I think taking alot of advice is at your own risk and you should really research things before you attempt things with your own tank. I just find it irritating when someone who is making claims when they have not seen the experiment through. Then again I get irritated easily
"

Never said the newbies wouldnt be in here reading... just that most of the topics discussed in the chemistry forum tend to be a little more "high level" so my bet is the amount of newbies who are likely be in here is far less than in the newbie thread. And it does have to do with half a brain... if you read a thread and 95% of the people are posting against the advice and you still do it you have an issue and may be a danger to yourself and those around you....
:lol:

 

[bertoni]

The problem with the design of your experiment today is that you add a bolus of ammonia and then track how long it takes for your tank to nitrify it. Obviously, livestock produce more than just ammonia, but for the sake of simplicity, let's just look at that.

It's true that fish produce other waste products, but only ammonia is toxic to them. It's quite possible to keep fish happy in a tank that has been cycled only with ammonia. Corals are a more complicated issue, but it'd be interesting to see whether his tank could support fish as a first step.

 

[Greenmaster]

Okay... I feel like I have to clarify something, I also need some info because I'm kind of lost on what you get from a 1 month fishless cycle that is different then my results.
First thing is I tested for Ammonia that was abbreviated with the initials Am, Nitrites were Ni, and Nitrates were Na... I tested for all of those and they all went to 0. Now I realize that I made the mistake of not doing one final ammonia dose for the final day to finalize the results. As this has created a fair amount of turmoil I have decided to "restart" this experiment. My plan is to put bleach into the system to kill everything, how much bleach do you think would be needed in this system in order to kill everything? I plan on letting the system run with bleach for at least 24 hours. Drain the water and flush with fresh water for a week, then left dry for a week followed by a new more controlled start. I will start by dosing a smaller amount of ammonia wait till ammonia and nitrites are down close to 0 then I will add more. Until it gets to the point that it can process the proper amount of ammonia within the 24 hour time frame, as that is what I believe is necessary for a cycled tank. I will be doing proper documentation, controlled and consistent testing, I might not be able to test as often on certain days because I work.
Now since there are lots of opinions on how I did it wrong, I'm looking on what else you experts would add on a fishless cycle, in order to cycle the tank, and have it ready for fish. I was under the impression that the only thing you needed for a fishless cycle was ammonia.
If anyone knows a good PO4 that I can add then I will also add and test for phosphates as well, since someone else said that was part of a cycled tank.