i have used biospira in a pinch to both cycle a tank for 12 clownfish with 0 ammonia spike and in a freshwater, bare 38 gallon system for the emergency quarantine of 2 4" discus, also with no ammonia spike. i'd say it's pretty good stuff, though not necessary when you have plenty of live rock covered in the same bacteria to do the job.
Reef Journal - First Build Ever!
- Thread starter vox
- Start date
i have used biospira in a pinch to both cycle a tank for 12 clownfish with 0 ammonia spike and in a freshwater, bare 38 gallon system for the emergency quarantine of 2 4" discus, also with no ammonia spike. i'd say it's pretty good stuff, though not necessary when you have plenty of live rock covered in the same bacteria to do the job.
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 0
I have never used Biospira. I have used a product called "Cycle" on my FW tanks with good results but never tried anything on a SW tank for an instant cycle type deal. I would be interested to see some kind of test where it was done with the 3 tanks to see what, if any, difference it makes. It could be that a single tank could have gone without a mini-cycle without the biospira.
It is actually nice to talk to someone that has used it though. Most of what you read is either from the manufacturer or third hand information.
It is actually nice to talk to someone that has used it though. Most of what you read is either from the manufacturer or third hand information.
- Messages
- 3,454
- Reaction score
- 0
I used Bio Spira for several cichlid tanks when I was in high school. The problem with "Cycle" is you have to keep using it, once you stop your tank will go through the actual cycle.
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 0
Never experienced that with it but it semi makes sense that it might actually cycle again. I have only used it on 5 or 6 tanks in the last 10-12 years. Most of the time I cycle with ammonia unless in a hurry.
Auburn? I will have to try to get up there sometime and meet the AU people.
Auburn? I will have to try to get up there sometime and meet the AU people.
- Messages
- 3,454
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, I'm aware, that's why I called it a "problem". I never had to wait to cycle a tank when using Bio Spira.
- Messages
- 3,454
- Reaction score
- 0
And he sees the light!
FWIW, I posted about the gas on the 2nd page, lol.
FWIW, I posted about the gas on the 2nd page, lol.
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 0
FWIW, I have the exact purewaterclub.com unit you showed in that photo. I had a few leaks and a heck of a time figuring out some of the connections, but I have 65ppm going in and 0 coming out. I'd be happy to help you through the install if you need it because their directions are poo.
Testing comparison:
I was not happy with the wide variation I was getting between my API test kit and my Jungle Quick Dips and thought that it would be wise to get some independent testing. I loaded up a quart of tank water, grabbed my API kit, Quick Dip and Hydrometer and headed over to Imagine Ocean.
Jenn was there and she was intrigued by the idea of another testing comparison and was completely on board to work with me on this experiment.
On to the results...
(1) Specific Density
- my Hydrometer - 1.023
- Jenn's Refractometer - 1.023
So far so good. :tongue: We matched and I feel good that my Hydrometer is currently working perfectly. I'm still buying a Refractometer as it is too fun of a toy to pass up.
Please note that all of the following tests were performed by Jenn with me playing lab assistant. Where appropriate we had three sets of eyes doing an independent blind grade of the results.
(2) pH
- API - 8.1 (Bill) 7.9 (Jenn) 7.9 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - 8.3 (Bill) 8.2 (Jenn) 8.1 (Brian)
- SeaChem - 8.2 (Bill) 8.1 (Jenn) 8.1 (Brian)
(3) Ammonia
- API - 0.75 (Bill) 0.75 (Jenn) 0.50 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - n/a, the Quick Dip does not measure Ammonia
- SeaChem - 0.7 (Bill) 0.4 (Jenn) 0.4 (Brian)
(4) Nitrite
- API - 1.0 (Bill) 1.0 (Jenn) 1.0 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - 2.0 (Bill) 2.0 (Jenn) 1.5 (Brian)
- SeaChem - 4.0 (Bill) 2.5 (Jenn) 4.0 (Brian)
(5) Nitrate
- API - 15 (Bill) 15 (Jenn) 15 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - 20 (Bill) 15 (Jenn) 15 (Brian)
- SeaChem - 1.5 (Bill) 2.0 (Jenn) 2.0 (Brian) - After looking at these results I'm not sure if the Nitrate scale used was the same.
(6) Alkalinity
- API - n/a, API does not test Alkalinity in my set
- Jungle Quick Dip - n/a, we got a funky blue color on the test strip that had no assigned color to grade against. We tested the sample twice and got the same n/a color both times.
- SeaChem - 3 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so there was no blind evaluation.
(7) Magnesium
- Red Sea - 1200 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so no blind evaluation.
- SeaChem - 875 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so no blind evaluation.
There was such a big difference here that we pulled out the reference sample from SeaChem with a known value of 1080. We tested the Red Sea test against it and came up with a value of 1300. We tested the reference with the SeaChem test and came in right at 1080. To make matters worse for the Red Sea kit was that it was almost impossible to fill the syringe as the chemical bottle to draw from had a dropper top. It took two of us and a lot of spilled reagent to get the syringe filled properly. Aggravating the problem was the issue of the syringe and the supplied needle not coupling correctly. The test was, for all practical purposes, unusable. When we finally got the syringe filled the test seemed to overstate the Magnesium by a material amount.
(8) Calcium
- Sera - 300 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so there was no blind evaluation.
- SeaChem - 300 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so there was no blind evaluation.
We also tested the Sera against the SeaChem reference liquid with a known value of 450 and it matched perfectly. I have a lot of confidence that both the SeaChem and Sera gave an accurate reading. The difference between the two is that you must remember the number of drops with Sera while you use a syringe for measurement with SeaChem.
So, what did I learn?
1. User judgement plays a factor as the three of us "graded" the results differently.
2. I like the little white tray that SeaChem uses so that you can do most of your tests at once without fiddling around with vials.
3. The Red Sea Magnesium test is not going to work for me. Maybe I got a defective vial and syringe but as it stands, it is unusable for solo testing. Even when we got it to work the results were very suspicious.
4. The Sera test was right on and very easy to use even though the spoon for adding the powder was a bit tricky. I like the measuring spoon better with SeaChem but that is a pretty minor point.
5. I'm not a big fan of the Quick Dip strips as they are harder to interpret and probably only good to give you a quick read of basic tank parameters.
6. The color cards with SeaChem are awesome. SeaChem uses a white card with a "window" that has a color strip threaded through it. You can very easily isolate the right color vs. the color cards that API uses. I do wish that the "units" for the hash marks between the numbers clearly marked.
7. Hydrometers can give you a funky reading if you aren't careful about air bubbles.
8. Light plays a factor, grade in a well lit place with natural light if possible.
9. Overall I have more confidence in SeaChem than API or Quick Dips. SeaChem seems to be more consistently on target.
A huge :thanks: goes out to Jenn and Imagine Ocean for helping me with this. You are wonderfully patient, especially since this was supposed to be your day off.
I was not happy with the wide variation I was getting between my API test kit and my Jungle Quick Dips and thought that it would be wise to get some independent testing. I loaded up a quart of tank water, grabbed my API kit, Quick Dip and Hydrometer and headed over to Imagine Ocean.
Jenn was there and she was intrigued by the idea of another testing comparison and was completely on board to work with me on this experiment.
On to the results...
(1) Specific Density
- my Hydrometer - 1.023
- Jenn's Refractometer - 1.023
So far so good. :tongue: We matched and I feel good that my Hydrometer is currently working perfectly. I'm still buying a Refractometer as it is too fun of a toy to pass up.
Please note that all of the following tests were performed by Jenn with me playing lab assistant. Where appropriate we had three sets of eyes doing an independent blind grade of the results.
(2) pH
- API - 8.1 (Bill) 7.9 (Jenn) 7.9 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - 8.3 (Bill) 8.2 (Jenn) 8.1 (Brian)
- SeaChem - 8.2 (Bill) 8.1 (Jenn) 8.1 (Brian)
(3) Ammonia
- API - 0.75 (Bill) 0.75 (Jenn) 0.50 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - n/a, the Quick Dip does not measure Ammonia
- SeaChem - 0.7 (Bill) 0.4 (Jenn) 0.4 (Brian)
(4) Nitrite
- API - 1.0 (Bill) 1.0 (Jenn) 1.0 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - 2.0 (Bill) 2.0 (Jenn) 1.5 (Brian)
- SeaChem - 4.0 (Bill) 2.5 (Jenn) 4.0 (Brian)
(5) Nitrate
- API - 15 (Bill) 15 (Jenn) 15 (Brian)
- Jungle Quick Dip - 20 (Bill) 15 (Jenn) 15 (Brian)
- SeaChem - 1.5 (Bill) 2.0 (Jenn) 2.0 (Brian) - After looking at these results I'm not sure if the Nitrate scale used was the same.
(6) Alkalinity
- API - n/a, API does not test Alkalinity in my set
- Jungle Quick Dip - n/a, we got a funky blue color on the test strip that had no assigned color to grade against. We tested the sample twice and got the same n/a color both times.
- SeaChem - 3 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so there was no blind evaluation.
(7) Magnesium
- Red Sea - 1200 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so no blind evaluation.
- SeaChem - 875 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so no blind evaluation.
There was such a big difference here that we pulled out the reference sample from SeaChem with a known value of 1080. We tested the Red Sea test against it and came up with a value of 1300. We tested the reference with the SeaChem test and came in right at 1080. To make matters worse for the Red Sea kit was that it was almost impossible to fill the syringe as the chemical bottle to draw from had a dropper top.
It took two of us and a lot of spilled reagent to get the syringe filled properly. Aggravating the problem was the issue of the syringe and the supplied needle not coupling correctly. The test was, for all practical purposes, unusable. When we finally got the syringe filled the test seemed to overstate the Magnesium by a material amount. (8) Calcium
- Sera - 300 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so there was no blind evaluation.
- SeaChem - 300 (Jenn) - This was a titration test so there was no blind evaluation.
We also tested the Sera against the SeaChem reference liquid with a known value of 450 and it matched perfectly. I have a lot of confidence that both the SeaChem and Sera gave an accurate reading. The difference between the two is that you must remember the number of drops with Sera while you use a syringe for measurement with SeaChem.
So, what did I learn?
1. User judgement plays a factor as the three of us "graded" the results differently.
2. I like the little white tray that SeaChem uses so that you can do most of your tests at once without fiddling around with vials.
3. The Red Sea Magnesium test is not going to work for me. Maybe I got a defective vial and syringe but as it stands, it is unusable for solo testing. Even when we got it to work the results were very suspicious.
4. The Sera test was right on and very easy to use even though the spoon for adding the powder was a bit tricky. I like the measuring spoon better with SeaChem but that is a pretty minor point.
5. I'm not a big fan of the Quick Dip strips as they are harder to interpret and probably only good to give you a quick read of basic tank parameters.
6. The color cards with SeaChem are awesome. SeaChem uses a white card with a "window" that has a color strip threaded through it. You can very easily isolate the right color vs. the color cards that API uses. I do wish that the "units" for the hash marks between the numbers clearly marked.
7. Hydrometers can give you a funky reading if you aren't careful about air bubbles.
8. Light plays a factor, grade in a well lit place with natural light if possible.
9. Overall I have more confidence in SeaChem than API or Quick Dips. SeaChem seems to be more consistently on target.
A huge :thanks: goes out to Jenn and Imagine Ocean for helping me with this. You are wonderfully patient, especially since this was supposed to be your day off.
skriz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 4,188
- Reaction score
- 131
Don't worry, I think all of us has bought that particular one at some point. I would get a controller (RK2, ACjr, etc.). They will control your lighting, fans, heater, etc., and monitor your ph. It's probably one of the best investments you'll make.
1. You can take him out when he gets a little grungy.
2. Run the skimmer. The live rock is filled with organisms that poop. You want to remove than poop with your skimmer. Also, the LR will have die-off unless it's fully cured; you'll want to skim that out too. It also gives your skimmer an opportunity to break-in.
3. There is no need to test Mg and Ca. You should not be dosing anything at this point as it is absolutely pointless. Since you will be performing some good sized water changes soon, you will be returned to a status quo. I would start to elevate Ca levels when you need to (getting close to time to add corals).
- Messages
- 1,323
- Reaction score
- 0
Wow...awesome job on the test comparisons. That's a valuable post that should get stickied somehwere!
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 0
It was added to Jenn's thread on API test kits:
The CA and MG tests were done purely out of curiosity - I too mentioned that it wasn't a major concern at this point, but since he brought his kits, and I had mine, we were caught up in the moment of "science experiment".
IMO it's also a good baseline too, even if not really necessary.
FWIW I'm not a big fan of using bottled stuff or dead stuff to cycle with live rock either - BUT they are legitimate ways to do the same thing.
I have seen tanks started up with cured rock, be just fine without an ammonia spike - after waiting sufficient time for the tank to settle out and find its ionic balance (post-diatom bloom). I think the confusion stems from "back in the day" before live rock, seeing ammonia was necessary to know the cycle had started. Cured rock that remains cured (no die-off) does not need to be subjected to a sudden excess of waste (and the ensuing ammonia spike that accompanies it) in order to be biologically stable.
Jenn
IMO it's also a good baseline too, even if not really necessary.
FWIW I'm not a big fan of using bottled stuff or dead stuff to cycle with live rock either - BUT they are legitimate ways to do the same thing.
I have seen tanks started up with cured rock, be just fine without an ammonia spike - after waiting sufficient time for the tank to settle out and find its ionic balance (post-diatom bloom). I think the confusion stems from "back in the day" before live rock, seeing ammonia was necessary to know the cycle had started. Cured rock that remains cured (no die-off) does not need to be subjected to a sudden excess of waste (and the ensuing ammonia spike that accompanies it) in order to be biologically stable.
Jenn
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
But it does tell you about your systems capability to consume the ammonia.
Perhaps - but if somebody starts a tank with cured rock, takes their time, waits for the diatom bloom and proceeds slowly, they still shouldn't see a spike.
One could argue that artificially creating a spike by deliberately introducing rotting matter, can actually cause some of the existing microfauna to die off (snowball effect) which can prolong a tank's ability to stabilize.
It all boils down to common sense, IMO. I see no reason to take cured/cycled live rock and pollute it.
Jenn
One could argue that artificially creating a spike by deliberately introducing rotting matter, can actually cause some of the existing microfauna to die off (snowball effect) which can prolong a tank's ability to stabilize.
It all boils down to common sense, IMO. I see no reason to take cured/cycled live rock and pollute it.
Jenn
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
If we were dealing with cycled/cured live rock I could not agree more. But in this situation the OP left the rock out of the water for well over an hour and the tank 1/2 full of water overnight thus surely allowing much of the benificial bacterias to die back and as well as any sponges.
So why then again is he seeing a spike?
So why then again is he seeing a spike?
Yes - he had the stuff in still water for a week or so too - that would definitely cause a spike. I don't see the need/benefit in adding more pollution (dead shrimp) or bacterial additives - the spike will take care of itself in due time.
When I tested his water yesterday the shrimp had been in the water about 15 hours. Maybe enough time to cause ammonia but doubtful on the nitrite or nitrate... so the rock being compromised a bit most likely caused the spike.
My reference before was to using cured rock (and moving it in a timely way - I did not specify) and was in response to arguments that one *should* somehow create an ammonia spike in otherwise cured rock.
This particular instance is a bit different. My advice was to remove the shrimp and abstain from adding anything else or otherwise manipulating things, and to leave it be and, 'Hurry up and wait'. Let Mother Nature do her thing and let it cycle on its own.
IME the more we tinker with it, the longer it will take.
Jenn
When I tested his water yesterday the shrimp had been in the water about 15 hours. Maybe enough time to cause ammonia but doubtful on the nitrite or nitrate... so the rock being compromised a bit most likely caused the spike.
My reference before was to using cured rock (and moving it in a timely way - I did not specify) and was in response to arguments that one *should* somehow create an ammonia spike in otherwise cured rock.
This particular instance is a bit different. My advice was to remove the shrimp and abstain from adding anything else or otherwise manipulating things, and to leave it be and, 'Hurry up and wait'. Let Mother Nature do her thing and let it cycle on its own.
IME the more we tinker with it, the longer it will take.
Jenn
I did leave 2/3 of my live rock out of the water for well over and hour, the Carribean that I had to putty together to make my four-piece structure on the right 1/2 of my tank. The other 1/3 stayed wet and is the rock that actually has is a lot more "alive". Unfortunately, the Carribean rock sat in my garage in a bucket full of salt water for two weeks while I was waiting for my tank. Even though I stirred the bucket up daily for almost two weeks I probably had a good amount of loss during that time. The Tonga (I think it is Tonga) I bought and immediately brought home and put in the tank. That rock was fully cured and is covered with good stuff. My Carribean looks naked in comparison. :blush:
95% of my rock (and 100% of my best live rock) was covered with my tank 1/2 full of water.
Similar threads
