Yes, quantify for me "much". That's a qualitative, not quantitative value. When attempting to cycle a tank, do you not want to cycle it quicker, therefore not removing ammonia? Especially in the case that little or no ammonia is showing in a tank? When there have been no indications of a cycle with feeding?
pods in new tank?
- Thread starter renato120
- Start date
The OP's tank is done initially cycling. He added the bacteria. It's done and over. The bacteria is there. It's present and consuming waste from the clownfish.
As far as exactly how much ammonia is absorbed by the carbon, I don't know, I don't have a lab. Plus not every carbon surface is the same. Air phase carbon (what you were citing) is completely different than carbon used for aquariums. Believe whatever you want, but I can assure you the people I cited know what they're talking about.
He never observed a spike. He never tested. You want to bet livestock that it's cycled without indications? Just adding "bacteria" does not make it magically work. I don't. I've lost livestock before getting anems too soon. Better safe than sorry, haste makes waste. Minimal food and waste.
So how are they different? Research it more. There are slight variations, HOWEVER, chemically it is the same. Since you don't like to research, it is the same as the different variations of GAC for the tank. The wiki I linked above covers the general types and manufacturing. Same carbon, same reactions, variations in the contact time and spacing.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. There is a reason Randy Holmes-Farley puts out detailed equations. Understanding is the key to not repeating mistakes.
So how are they different? Research it more. There are slight variations, HOWEVER, chemically it is the same. Since you don't like to research, it is the same as the different variations of GAC for the tank. The wiki I linked above covers the general types and manufacturing. Same carbon, same reactions, variations in the contact time and spacing.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. There is a reason Randy Holmes-Farley puts out detailed equations. Understanding is the key to not repeating mistakes.
"Since I don't like to research." Really? You're sadly mistaken my friend and it's ok to admit when you are wrong. Or better yet, stop digging your ditch.
Look, clearly you are not comprehending what you're reading. The OP stated he's been testing. Reread the beginning of the thread. You're making stuff up and you're citing sources that contradict your own "opinions" stating them as fact.
I'll remind you that what you post on message boards is permanent. So, perhaps you should think hard about what you're saying and be ready to back anything up with facts and resources, not conjecture.
At this point I don't see how continuing this conversation could benefit anyone so I suggest we leave it at that.
So essentially my dear boy, "because it's on the internet, it must be true". I have no qualms about permanent. My job is troubleshooting. Finding the cause and FIXING it. Not patching it. That right there says you do not like to research. "I don't know, I don't have a lab". Do you have carbon? Can you buy ammonia? Do you have a test kit? Albeit it won't be an ICP grade test, are you not capable of performing this test? I'd be kind to help you out, except I'm currently four hours away from my house and testing supplies. Though I will need to the next time I am at home and buy pure ammonia. This topic has actually arisen several times in the last few weeks. I have yet to see someone else taking your standpoint. But I am curious to see the results, and if Randy has any input or knowledge to the cause and effectiveness. Unlike yourself, I don't simply take someone's word. Yet there are grades of respecting their knowledge and verifying it yourself.
Let me give you two definitions. Qualitative: "relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity. (of an adjective) describing the quality of something in size, appearance, value, etc. Such adjectives can be submodified by words such as very and have comparative and superlative forms."
Quantitative: "1. that is or may be estimated by quantity.
2. of or pertaining to the describing or measuring of quantity."
"The OP stated he's been testing." "The material will not normally remove MUCH ammonia from the water." Using qualitative, this could be based vs 100 ppm or 1,000,000. It could also be based upon the flow. "Not much" compared to 1,000,000 COULD be 1,000 ppm. Then again it could be 0.1 ppm. It's all relative. Though when placing a fish in a solution with 0.1 vs 1,000 ppm, your outcome will vary drastically.
Quantitatively, showing the efficiency with different flows would show the actual effectiveness. Basic scientific paper requirements and recommendations for writing a paper.
Now that we have reached elementary english, you have still failed to respond to how you know, for a fact, that, "The OP's tank is done initially cycling. He added the bacteria. It's done and over." I would like to see the detailed analysis, including the proof.
The funny thing my dear boy, I do intend to test, Though from your statements, I have a feeling you do not, at the time of me writing this, have a plan to also test. You are simply following, "Because it's on the internet, it must be true. They can't lie". The irony here, I have no issue admitting I'm wrong, or that I do not know something. I've admitted it on here several times in fact. You can look at my previous posts with your extra time.
Though I must also admit that I can curious about the exact differences in your statement of "Air phase carbon (what you were citing) is completely different than carbon used for aquariums." They are indeed designed for different applications, but what are the significant ("completely different") differences you speak of?
Certainly an entertaining conversation. :thumbsup:
Haha. "Dear boy"? I can assure you that's not how you would address me "off the Internet". Your behavior is typical of someone who loses an argument. They turn to personal attacks.
Go ahead and test away. I'd love to see your face when the results are the same as those who've already done it. You make these accusations that I don't do my research. But clearly not only do you not do your research but you're so stubborn that you don't believe the information that's already available to you. It's laughable that you believe EVERYTHING you read on the Internet is false. Well, I guess you're partly right, this would be true of your statements. Fortunately for the reefing world, you've only been posting for 5 days now and have not started any threads. You're holding yourself out as some expert, but you just added 3 anemones to your new tank and killed 2 of them.
At least you find Randy to be a reliable source of information. So here are his words from another thread. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2163995
I hope now you'll comprehend that you are flat out wrong. You've also made a mess of this thread and if you continue with your personal attacks I'm sure your time here on Reef Central will be a short one.
Go ahead and test away. I'd love to see your face when the results are the same as those who've already done it. You make these accusations that I don't do my research. But clearly not only do you not do your research but you're so stubborn that you don't believe the information that's already available to you. It's laughable that you believe EVERYTHING you read on the Internet is false. Well, I guess you're partly right, this would be true of your statements. Fortunately for the reefing world, you've only been posting for 5 days now and have not started any threads. You're holding yourself out as some expert, but you just added 3 anemones to your new tank and killed 2 of them.
At least you find Randy to be a reliable source of information. So here are his words from another thread. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2163995
I hope now you'll comprehend that you are flat out wrong. You've also made a mess of this thread and if you continue with your personal attacks I'm sure your time here on Reef Central will be a short one.
ardsman
New member
I have been keeping and maintaining "fish tanks" for 40 of my 58 years on and off, I have attended many shows and meetings and have met a lot of "experts". In my humble opinion people can be experts in some things but not all things. The OP of this thread was reaching out for help not criticism. He started his cycle differently, outside of the "recommendations". When I first started in the hobby it was the recommendation that you placed 1 or 2 "hardy" fish in your tank awithin a few days of starting it up. I watched this thread deteriorate due to one persons attitude. I don't normally get myself involved in these "discussions" but with all due respect wcarterh I have never read a more condescending post since I joined RC, you by admission have made mistakes as have I and 99% of the people here would admit to. Personally if I have nothing constructive to offer to a problem I keep my fingers off the keyboard and my mouth shut.
lamyers3
New member
Thanks Ardsman, it was going in the wrong direction.
Renato120, every tank is different, just enjoy the clowns, add some snails and keep testing for possible spikes.
My tank been up for three years and never cycled. My first tank, fifteen years ago cycled with two chromis and they made it.
Just go slow, wait till Christmas and then buy more fish for your tank. :beer:
Renato120, every tank is different, just enjoy the clowns, add some snails and keep testing for possible spikes.
My tank been up for three years and never cycled. My first tank, fifteen years ago cycled with two chromis and they made it.
Just go slow, wait till Christmas and then buy more fish for your tank. :beer:
johno4
New member
I just thought I would add to this.
I have to agree with CuzzA. I set up my tank just over a month ago. Dead dry rock and a bags of live sand, I also added some bottled bacteria. I was "feeding" the tank with some old pellet food I had. The tank never went through the traditional cycle and I had basically the same experience as the OP. I am not new to tanks and have many over the last 15 years and I was skeptical myself but decided to add two clowns after only 1 week. 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite and very little nitrate. I was nervous that adding the clowns would cause a spike and tested daily. It never happened, the tank is completely cycled. I added 2 more fish last week and all is good.
To the OP, your tank is cycled and continue to treat is as such. Have fun with your tank and enjoy it!
I have to agree with CuzzA. I set up my tank just over a month ago. Dead dry rock and a bags of live sand, I also added some bottled bacteria. I was "feeding" the tank with some old pellet food I had. The tank never went through the traditional cycle and I had basically the same experience as the OP. I am not new to tanks and have many over the last 15 years and I was skeptical myself but decided to add two clowns after only 1 week. 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite and very little nitrate. I was nervous that adding the clowns would cause a spike and tested daily. It never happened, the tank is completely cycled. I added 2 more fish last week and all is good.
To the OP, your tank is cycled and continue to treat is as such. Have fun with your tank and enjoy it!
Yep, with the correct type of bacteria now available to the consumer the old ways of starting the nitrifying cycle are over. No more waiting a month to grow bacteria when you can just dump it in the tank. 
Of course the cycle doesn't ever end and there's more to come with new tanks, but you have to start somewhere. Dr. Tim created Bio Spira and his product One and Only. Thank you very much sir.
Of course the cycle doesn't ever end and there's more to come with new tanks, but you have to start somewhere. Dr. Tim created Bio Spira and his product One and Only. Thank you very much sir. 
renato120
New member
THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE HELP! I never wanted this thread to get to this point. For some people they call a mistake for others its just another way to do it "the bacteria bottle"
Now if I did the right thing or not..... Honestly I dont know.
You guys are extremely helpful. The video that Cuzza posted its exactly what I did it.
I have been checking everyday and all i get its 0 for ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and phoshate.
Now if I did the right thing or not..... Honestly I dont know.
You guys are extremely helpful. The video that Cuzza posted its exactly what I did it.
I have been checking everyday and all i get its 0 for ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and phoshate.
renato120
New member
I will get some snails this wkd! I dont think im gonna wait till christmas lol....
johno4
New member
The "bacteria in a bottle" is fairly new to the hobby and to seems like a to good to be true scenario option which is why it causes some tension.
Be patient with how much you add and how fast you add so the bacteria can keep up. You are doing fine, this a great place to ask questions so keep asking. Even the somewhat heated discussion allowed many people to learn, so its all good.
Be patient with how much you add and how fast you add so the bacteria can keep up. You are doing fine, this a great place to ask questions so keep asking. Even the somewhat heated discussion allowed many people to learn, so its all good.
gone fishin
New member
What is done is done. To the OP go ahead and add some CUC but, go easy adding some fishes to the tank. One at a time and give it a few weeks before adding another. Good luck
