trouble with fishless cycle

[myofibroblast]

Agreed, hence it is more appropriate to discuss bacterial population in terms of density (that is, number of bacteria per substrate area).

No one is implying that controlled experiments need to be performed by an individual, but it is also overly reductive to say "do it this way" and expect to get the same results everytime.

An absence of appreciation for the biological processes underpinning the biotope you want to establish and a blind faith in any one person's prescription for success are just as negligent as one who doesn't check water chemistry or do water changes.

[Honey Badger 1]

There are many of us here who appreciate the biological process of the biotope we are establishing, that is why the many of us with years of experience in this hobby understand that there is not enough bacteria in the substrate to make a huge difference in the cycling process but count on the much larger population density available in the filter media. Your lack of understanding this basic fact shows your inability to fully appreciate the importance of simple research to help understand basics of the biological process we are trying to establish and your complete ability to over complicate the simplest of processes.

[KingFisher]

Lets try to keep it simple folks, not all our members are walking thesauruses.

[Lady Hobbs]

In simpler terms, we do not need a ton of bacteria unless we will be stocking a whale.

[myofibroblast]

mommy1,

To be precise, substrate area that I refer to is the surface area on which bacteria will attach, which includes gravel, surfaces of plants, decorations, tubing, filter surfaces as well as filter media. I apologize for the confusion. When speaking about bacteria, substrate area refers to the surface area on which bacteria attach, no matter the makeup of that area (glass vs plants vs rock vs filter). Also, substrate is often used as a term for pre-metabolic products (e.g. literature refers to ammonia as a substrate for ammonia-oxidizing bacteria).

Thank you for making our understanding more precise.

[myofibroblast]

Lady Hobbs, how do you reconcile your last comment with Mommy's? Or were you referring to another comment?

[fishmommie]

Lady Hobbs, how do you reconcile your last comment with Mommy's? Or were you referring to another comment?

myofibroblast: I will not speak for Lady Hobbs but offer a comment none the less. We attempt to assist on this forum by relating 'best practices' and 'best results' given our own experiences. Many here have years of experience in fishkeeping and many are new to the hobby and are not looking for hypothesis or running dialogue to reconcile theory vs practical application. Nor are they generally microbiologists or walking thesauruses as has been pointed out. They want to know the best and simplest, most effective way to get from point A to point B and rely on the collective knowledge/experience of forum members to provide that solution. In any event, that's how my perception of the forum operates and feel this abundance of theorizing clouds the issues.
I think it would be courteous to continue to assist the original poster with practice application of the issues at hand and dispense with the theorizing. Should you wish to engage a discussion of a particular issue, I would encourage you to start your own thread as there may be many who would enjoy engaging you on a given subject. Thanks so much.

[Sandz]

I would just like to aid to the reasoning of Mommy/Hobbs and FM... When someone is asking for advice at any time we like to be clear and consise in easy to understand terms. Not that we couldnt discuss the nomenclature of our process or of a tank and the general chemestry applications but we want to make this approachable for a 14 year old as well as a 99 year old. We get a bit riled up when someone claims to be new yet tends to offer advice, let alone ones based upon hypothetics and not real world experience.

[myofibroblast]

Sandz,

Clear and concise does not mean one has to ignore a question. What I find most troubling from this beginner's forum is that there is a general discouragement of asking "why".

Pckroeger, in this case, asked why his ammonia was stuck at 0.25ppm. Why. Yes, he also asked for suggestions on what to do, but it seems like experienced hobbyists only want to address the "what to do" without providing any explanation that addresses "why". Being clear and concise means you can answer both.

I have never disagreed with the practice of offering suggestions based on collective wisdom. But, when a new hobbyist is asking for an explanation of his predicament, and how the corrective measure addresses the issue, it is the highest form of arrogance to simply ignore that question. It doesn't foster curiosity or a thirst to understand the underlying process that is so vital to keeping a biotope healthy.

When someone doesn't ask for an explanation, I don't interject. But when a fellow beginner is asking or seeking to discuss a potential explanation, I will extend him the courtesy of coming up with an explanation, which is more than what I can say for the others who have so vehemently spoken against this. And much more relevant to Pckroeger's question, might I add.

If the stated purpose of this beginner's circle is to simply follow collective wisdom without the benefit of seeking explanations when a problem arises, then it should be made clear so that we newbies do not join the forum under a false understanding that this is a nurturing community.

[myofibroblast]

we want to make this approachable for a 14 year old as well as a 99 year old. We get a bit riled up when someone claims to be new yet tends to offer advice, let alone ones based upon hypothetics and not real world experience.

I don't presume one's curiosity based on age, nor the approachability of my answer based on the person's age. If someone is curious enough to ask for potential explanations, we should just try and address the question. A 14 year old may have just as much capacity to engage in discussion as a 99 year old. I don't make those presumptions and I err on the side of respecting the person asking the question.

What is truly inhospitable or unapproachable is if the question is ignored.