For Miss W....

[jonnyf84]

Awww I'm loving this thread, this is exactly what i wanted from this, constructive critisism, negativity and hopefully a sharp turn around when it turns out your pesemistic, negative, dubious views are in fact just that...views, OPINIONS! You can be wrong, hell....I can be wrong but there is deffinately something here to work on, something that clearly has potential, something to which a beneficial compromise can be reached. The time frames i gave here are rough as i mentioned in a previous thread i have cycled using this method in 11 days, the guy i got this method off said he has managed a full cycle in 5 days (genius) - if that is true then surely you cannot dismiss this as a hair brain idea that, most of the time, won't work. Accept that this has worked for me time and time again - me, personally, i have no reason to stretch the truth - i simply believe this is a fantastic method that can be easily copied. I correct my point of this been a recommendation - its not, at the moment this is my personnel preferance and it has never failed for me and i hope that together we can come to a compromise and hopefully a new, easy, quick method of completeing a task that every aquarists goes through time and time again and one that many find stressful and frustrating. chip, very much looking forward to these results of yours and like i said i'll be sure to keep results and post here when i next cycle. Miss W, i can asure you i am not a lobbyist working for API

 

[andywg]

Awww I'm loving this thread, this is exactly what i wanted from this, constructive critisism, negativity and hopefully a sharp turn around when it turns out your pesemistic, negative, dubious views are in fact just that...views, OPINIONS!

Not so much opinions here as a good understanding of what is required to build up a bacterial colony that will deal with the levels of waste put out by the fish.

You can be wrong, hell....I can be wrong but there is deffinately something here to work on, something that clearly has potential, something to which a beneficial compromise can be reached.

There will be no "compromise". We will remain sceptical of any miracle product until there is evidence to support it does work. If that evidence stands up to scrutiny then the product will be considered good.

The time frames i gave here are rough as i mentioned in a previous thread i have cycled using this method in 11 days, the guy i got this method off said he has managed a full cycle in 5 days (genius) - if that is true then surely you cannot dismiss this as a hair brain idea that, most of the time, won't work.

That's a big if. I don't see how you will prove what someone else claims to have done in a conversation with you.

Accept that this has worked for me time and time again - me, personally, i have no reason to stretch the truth - i simply believe this is a fantastic method that can be easily copied.

Then surely you must also accept that many people have tried this product and it has failed them. They too have no reason to stretch the truth. Now, could you consider it might be something other than the product that helped you?

I correct my point of this been a recommendation - its not, at the moment this is my personnel preferance and it has never failed for me and i hope that together we can come to a compromise and hopefully a new, easy, quick method of completeing a task that every aquarists goes through time and time again and one that many find stressful and frustrating.

But the timescale you have stated you achieved was within 25 days. Bignose does it in 21 days with ammonia and can then stock the tank fully at that time. That is not quicker. Claiming you know someone who did it in 5 is not going to cut it here.

Essentially ti will all coem down to evidence. Really, until both you, chip and some neutral people can report swift easy success with the product it just will not meet with universal approval and recommendation on this board.

 

[jonnyf84]

quote:That's a big if. I don't see how you will prove what someone else claims to have done in a conversation with you.

That would be a impossibility wouldn't it now. A little bit of belief and experimentation helps.

quote:Then surely you must also accept that many people have tried this product and it has failed them. They too have no reason to stretch the truth. Now, could you consider it might be something other than the product that helped you?

No. the majority uses the stated doses, i did not - experimentation.

quote:But the timescale you have stated you achieved was within 25 days. Bignose does it in 21 days with ammonia and can then stock the tank fully at that time. That is not quicker.

good for bignose if that is indeed true, how do you or anybody else know that stocking all at once didn't have a detrimental effect on the fish?

quote:Essentially ti will all coem down to evidence. Really, until both you, chip and some neutral people can report swift easy success with the product it just will not meet with universal approval and recommendation on this board.


Fair enough too, i wouldn't expect anything less, but remember andy, this is my opinion, something that has worked for me personally - I am not asking for anybody's seal of approval. If we can shed light on this and help others then that is a bonus.

NB# sorry, i dont know how to do all those seperate quotes.

 

[rabbut]

Ok, quoting first.

At the start of the quote, put [ quote] (without the space, that is put there so the code will show). At the end of the quote, put [/ quote] again without the space.

quote:That's a big if. I don't see how you will prove what someone else claims to have done in a conversation with you.

That would be a impossibility wouldn't it now. A little bit of belief and experimentation helps.

Well, knowing the guy myself, would find it hard to believe him to lie about it off the shop floor. On the shop floor is another question entirely. Remember he is a salesman, looking to puch a product. Though I know his recomended method, I have never herd him indicate the lenght of time it took for him to run any cycle...

quote:Then surely you must also accept that many people have tried this product and it has failed them. They too have no reason to stretch the truth. Now, could you consider it might be something other than the product that helped you?

No. the majority uses the stated doses, i did not - experimentation.

Wouldn't call using someone elses method experimentation, but I see your point. This said, I have followed your method with the product and had it fail...

quote:But the timescale you have stated you achieved was within 25 days. Bignose does it in 21 days with ammonia and can then stock the tank fully at that time. That is not quicker.

good for bignose if that is indeed true, how do you or anybody else know that stocking all at once didn't have a detrimental effect on the fish?

This is a good question. Besically, when you fishless cycle you use ammonia to substitue the fish and test ammonia and nitrite to see when they drop back to where should be (I.E. zero) At this point, if you can go from 5ppm of ammonia to zero nitrite and ammonia in 12hours, we deam the tank cycled and add the fish. This is where the checking it is safe comes in. We test ammonia and nitrite for a full week, on a daily basis, to ensure that these two levels remain zero once the fish are in. If the stay zero, then the testable values of the water are good and of no risk to the fish. Obvously there a multiple other things in the water that could harm our fish that we cannot test for, but for these, the question is the same for both methods. With zero ammonia and nitrite, how do we know there is nothing in the tank to harm our fish? We cannot practically test other things as hobbyists, so in both cases the answer is we don't know for shure.

quote:Essentially ti will all coem down to evidence. Really, until both you, chip and some neutral people can report swift easy success with the product it just will not meet with universal approval and recommendation on this board.

I agree with Andy here. We need people to have timely success using this product to cycle their tanks without too many failures using your method. There is one here whom has failed with your method, and two who clain to have succeeded. OK, you have the majority success so far, but three recorded cycles is by no means a representative sample

All the best
Rabbut

 

[mark.w.jones]

This thread is not getting anywhere IMO. If I came on here saying that I had cycled a tank in 2 hours by dropping a dead rat in there and that this has worked successfully on 3 occasions for me, would TFF members say it was a good method? no. Lets say then that numerous other members put in an appearance saying that they had also tried the dead rat method and that it hadn't worked from them would, TFF members say it was a good method? no. Instead of justing talking it up jonny why not actually provide all of us with what we've asked. Some solid figures rather than blowing your miracle cycling trumpet every day.

 

[backtotropical]

can you give us a list of what the exact readings were (numbers not 'fine' or 'trace') every day during the 12 day cycling period in one of these tanks?

not a chance i'm afraid as i very rarely tested, the only time i tested more than 3 times was my first try at this method and even then i only tested 4 or 5 times and didn't record the levels.

I wonder if this could be why it appeared so successful? How do you know when the tank is cycled if you don't test, out of interest?

 

[Miss Wiggle]

can you give us a list of what the exact readings were (numbers not 'fine' or 'trace') every day during the 12 day cycling period in one of these tanks?

not a chance i'm afraid as i very rarely tested, the only time i tested more than 3 times was my first try at this method and even then i only tested 4 or 5 times and didn't record the levels.

I wonder if this could be why it appeared so successful? How do you know when the tank is cycled if you don't test, out of interest?

precisley why i'm so skeptical!

 

[jonnyf84]

people people, read my posts before you reply. I said i only test 2 or 3 times, after 12-17 days usually. Again read my posts - I will test daily next time i cycle. Agreed that this post isn't going anywhere but an to a needless argument until i next cycle, at which time will be eager to get all of your opinions again, i appreciate the time and views you have all given and look forward to the possibility of others showing positive tests - if not i look foward to posting my reslts in the not too distant future.

All the best,

Jonny.

 

[backtotropical]

I still don't understand how you know you are cycled if you only test 2 or 3 times. Seems pretty unreliable to me.

 

[jonnyf84]

I still don't understand how you know you are cycled if you only test 2 or 3 times. Seems pretty unreliable to me.

how? when NH, NO2 are zero with very little NO3 then the cycle is complete. you don't have to test 20 times to know this.

 

[backtotropical]

I still don't understand how you know you are cycled if you only test 2 or 3 times. Seems pretty unreliable to me.

how? when NH, NO2 are zero with very little NO3 then the cycle is complete. you don't have to test 20 times to know this.

As most experienced members here will tell you, cycling is seldom as simple as that. Generally to be pretty sure you are properly cycled would take at least 1 week of testing every day to ensure that NH3 and NO2 are consistently 0. One random test which shows 0 for both would be pretty unreliable in my experience.

Also, i don't understand why you say NO3 should be very low for the cycle to be complete. The NO3 level is almost irrelevant to whether the cycle is complete or not.

BTT

- edited for spelling

 

[jonnyf84]

As most experienced members here will tell you, cycling is seldom as simple as that. Generally to be pretty sure you are properly cycled would take at least 1 week of testing every day to ensure that NH3 and NO2 are consistently 0. One randon test which shows 0 for both would be pretty unreliable in my experience.

Also, i don't understand why you say NO3 should be very low for the cycle to be complete. The NO3 level is almost irrelevant to whether the cycle is complete or not.

BTT

i didn't say one test did I!!!!! I really wish some people would read the posts before replying, and please don't lecture me with the experience comment, trust me when i say i have plenty of that. Testing for NO3 is essential, if it were 0 (which has happened before you ask) you know something wierd is going on, if its at 50 shortly after a water change then again you know something fishy is going on (pardon the pun). Using stress zyme is anything but a exact science but from my experience with it the end of the cycle (when i begin testing) can throw out some suprising and unexpected results, these have never been serious and are few and far between but IMO still puts this method ahead of the others. NOTE TO BTT - read thoroughly before replying please :stupid:

 

[waterdrop]

I would not be so quick to take offence at BTT. He is one of our most fun, open-minded and experienced members here and has given help and encouragement to me and many others on this forum for quite a long time.

To me too it sounded quite surprising how little testing you did during cycling and, although one doesn't need to do a whole lot of testing to get through a cycle, if you are interested in the subject of cycling it leaves you with little log data to clarify to yourself and others what course of the measurements looked like.

I agree with BTT's statement that nitrate (NO3) measurements have little bearing on knowing the endpoint of cycling. The robust tests for the endpoints of either fishless or fish-in cycling both involve ammonia and nitrite (NO2) and can be made with just those. Nitrate (NO3) is interesting and can be important on its own, but it varies all over the place from plants and from inconsistent testing procedures, especially with beginners.

As we've seen with Tim Hovanec's papers, its really rare and hard to get much serious science focused on the cycling subject of our hobby. So its really silly for us to squabble with each other over what for all of us are fairly unscientific individual observations that we all hope will gradually continue our muddling towards better and faster techniques over time.

It seems fairly unsurprising that if you come along and throw out the opinion that using stresszyme (with changes in the directed amounts, I think you said) is ahead of the other methods (including pure ammonia fishless) but still have only a few case reports and incomplete testing trends for those case reports, then its going to rankle some of the members who have watched previous episodes of particular bottled bacterias being promoted, beginners getting excited and putting their hopes into the new promotion, but then being disappointed.

I think the thing to do when you've got a new formula for cycling, like this one you've got, is to sit back and tally up some more cases, with increased log entries for each of the usual cycling parameters that are followed, days counted, all that sort of stuff and then introduce your results with perhaps more acknowledgement that it could have flaws, but seems to be a possible improvement in overall speed or quality of cycling.. etc.

Probably you feel you've done that, and that everyone, including me is all of a sudden jumping all over you and lecturing. If that's so, I'm sorry, don't mean to be doing that at all (I've always felt that the format of writing in a web forum can somehow artificially cause remarks to sound worse than the writer intends) and in fact hope that you'll hang in there and try some more cases with your technique and keep giving us some feedback on it.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Miss Wiggle]

well put WD

Can be hard to convey a tone of voice in text, that's why I use smiley's, although they're a bit silly sometimes they can make the difference between understanding and misunderstanding and an argument!

You wanna get down with the yoof and get some smileys on the go

 

[backtotropical]

Firstly, i'm not trying to give you an 'experience lecture' as i know nothing of your experience. If I were to be pedantic about it, I used the wrong word. I should have said 'KNOWLEDGEABLE'.

I did in fact read the whole thread thoroughly and if I missed anything, i do apoligise. However, you say in your last post

the end of the cycle (when i begin testing) can throw out some suprising and unexpected results

How do you know its the end of the cycle if you haven't been testing before that?

Testing for NO3 is not essential. NO3 can be 0 for several reasons which wouldn't indicate a problem, including that the nitrite oxidising bacteria haven't colonised the filter yet, or the presence of live plants. Also, 50ppm of NO3 after a water change indicating a problem would depend on the localised water supply. In areas such as London, the tap water can often have up to 80ppm of NO3, so 50ppm certainly wouldn't be problematic. With this in mind, it could be said that testing NO3 can actually cloud the judgement of an aquarist who may not fully understand the other things going on in the tank.

when NH, NO2 are zero with very little NO3 then the cycle is complete

This statement is plain wrong which ever way you look at it. NO3 doesn't have to be low level for the cycle to be complete. As i said before, NO3 levels are almost irrelevant to whether the cycle is complete or not.

Anyway, back to my previous point, how did you know the cycle was complete when you claim not to remember the test results?

To conclude my post Jonny, I'm not here for an argument, i am merely trying to point out the apparent shortfalls in your method. Please don't take offence as it is not intended.