Freshwater cycling

[Rbishop]

You are mistaken once again in what I said...more aptly you are putting words in my text..lol. Just as you are mistaken about not being in chat for over a year now..you were there twice this last week alone.

But it is all good!

:grinyes:

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Excuse me Rb- did I misquote you? Did I fail to quote 100% of what you wrote? I did not. I used your exact words and none were put in your mouth except by you. And when you say

I never claimed "0" was the target, I stated zero was reasonable as opposed to .25-.5 ppm on a fishy cycle.

How can you possibly think that doesn't mean that 0 is where you want folks to be. Stop playing semantics, you are clearly arguing for 0.

On the other hand you did misquote me. I never said I was not in chat, I said over the past year I was almost never there. And that is the truth. I tend not to go in when certain folks are there. And exactly how long was I in chat, and don't count the long idle time where I never said a word because I was not participating and had simply forgotten to log out. I don't go into the chat much any more as it long ago stopped being a fish chat but had morphed in almost 100% social chit chat.

And finally, I have shown you to be wrong about most of what you have said in this exchange. And your only response is to claim you never said what you said or that I misquoted you, which is also a misstatement on your part. Why have you failed to respond to a single point I have made not just using my opinion but backed up by statements and research done by folks far more qualified on these matters than you or I.

But lets make it real simple Rb. I have stated unequivocally that a reading of .25 or even .5 ppm of total ammonia is only a concern if the ph and temp are at or above specific levels when considered for a short term period, i.e. the 10-14 days that it should take a properly done fish-in or fishless cycle to have ammonia reading 0.

So you can keep on insulting me personally rather than admitting you have your facts wrong, I no longer care. Your erroneous opinions do not change the science involved any more than your saying the earth is flat would make it so. I strongly suggest you do some research regarding the toxocity of both ammonia and nitrite so you will actually have some basic in fact for what you say. I will even help you out in educating yourself by offering the following lab studies on the topic. Maybe this time you will actually read some of it before you respond?

Survival, growth and metabolic parameters of silver catfish, Rhamdia quelen, juveniles exposed to different waterborne nitrite levels
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1679-62252011000100013&script=sci_arttext

Tolerance to temperature, pH, ammonia and nitrite in cardinal tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi, an amazonian ornamental fish
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/aa/v38n4/v38n4a23.pdf

Acute toxicity and sublethal effects of ammonia and nitrite for juvenile cobia Rachycentron canadum (abstract only)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0044848607004838

Acute and chronic toxicity of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate to the endangered topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (abstract only)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Influence of pH, Salinity, Calcium, and Ammonia Source on Acute Ammonia Toxicity to Golden Shiners, Notemigonus crysoleucas (abstract only)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...nticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Effect of chronic exposure to ammonia on growth, food utilisation and metabolism of the European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) (abstract only)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0990744003000925

Dogmas and controversies in the handling of nitrogenous wastes: Is exogenous ammonia a growth stimulant in fish?
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/207/12/2043.full

If you want more got to Google Scholar and Type in "ammonia toxicity for tropical fish" or "nitrite toxicity for tropical fish" or "ammonia and fish". Any and all of these will get you lots of research studies.

 

[Rbishop]

You crack me...you didn't mis quote me, you just made assumptions on what I texted...but that is your choice.
I actually do read your links....guess you assume I don't. Take it for what you want, as you seem to do.
Still see no need to over complicate things.
See you in chat!


Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app

 

[Fish_Bone]

This thread has been closed.

Oh wait I don't have that ability here...lol

Sent from my HTC PH39100 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[TwoTankAmin]

OK RB- I must be an idiot, You said .25 is bad, you say that 0 is not the target. Can we assume your ideal number is above 0 and less than .25.? And what is that number at which folks should be happy? If you had one maybe you could state it for our benefit. And once you have given us that number, could you please recommend a test kit or method one should use to be able to test ammonia >0 and <.25 ppm?

How can you possibly have read my post, then read all 7 of the research pieces at those links and then posted your reply all in under 8 minutes? I posted at 3:31 and you at 3:39. If nothing else you are giving me a few good laughs when you claim you read the stuff.

As for complicating things- making people panic when they need not, making folks do water changes which will also have a stressful effect on fish when they are not needed, proloninging a fish-in cycle needlessly and failing to accept the science involved all complicate things for people who then make the mistake of listening to what you say.

I am done arguing. I offer science and what comes back is basically irrelevant junk. In response to about 9 or 10 studies and a number of quotes I got back not one word of scientific comment nor one link to similar types of content which would show what I posted is inaccurate or that it has been supplanted by later research. It is hard to argue science with people who does not appear to understand what science is. I am not devoting more time to this thread. Folks can chose to accept the science after they read it or they can ignore the science and continue to accept the urban aquarium myths being offered in this thread with no basis in fact.

 

[jglk90]

Wow... this is great stuff!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC

 

[jglk90]

Wow... this is great stuff!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC

The knowledge I get from the site that is.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC

 

[Rbishop]

Not arguing at all, TTA...no place have I stated or attempted to. You have repeatedly made assumptions on my statements, completely out of context. You are severely over complicating a simple issue of cycling, no matter the method with home aquarists...I am glad and thrilled you have personally taken things to a much deeper level for your personal needs. Hopefully you can stop trying to inhibit folks by trying to twist anything I post. I never insulted you once..at all..in fact paid you a couple of compliments.....yet every post of yours seeems like some personal vendetta to slam me. Must be your personal issues that you can freely PM me about though. Always here to help folks become better, whether over cycling or how to use the forum correctly.

:grinyes:

 

[Rbishop]

I notice you are still monitoring the thread..dang Mod powers...lmao

 

[jbradt]

OK RB- I must be an idiot, You said .25 is bad, you say that 0 is not the target. Can we assume your ideal number is above 0 and less than .25.? And what is that number at which folks should be happy? If you had one maybe you could state it for our benefit. And once you have given us that number, could you please recommend a test kit or method one should use to be able to test ammonia >0 and <.25 ppm?

How can you possibly have read my post, then read all 7 of the research pieces at those links and then posted your reply all in under 8 minutes? I posted at 3:31 and you at 3:39. If nothing else you are giving me a few good laughs when you claim you read the stuff.

As for complicating things- making people panic when they need not, making folks do water changes which will also have a stressful effect on fish when they are not needed, proloninging a fish-in cycle needlessly and failing to accept the science involved all complicate things for people who then make the mistake of listening to what you say.

I am done arguing. I offer science and what comes back is basically irrelevant junk. In response to about 9 or 10 studies and a number of quotes I got back not one word of scientific comment nor one link to similar types of content which would show what I posted is inaccurate or that it has been supplanted by later research. It is hard to argue science with people who does not appear to understand what science is. I am not devoting more time to this thread. Folks can chose to accept the science after they read it or they can ignore the science and continue to accept the urban aquarium myths being offered in this thread with no basis in fact.

I hate to get in the middle of a good pissing contest, but can you provide a scientific link that shows that water changes stress fish out? That's not been my experience at all.