AquariumScience.Org - What a Curiously Crazy Site

[JuiceBox52]

Quoted from the link above under the cycling section.

Beneficial bacteria thrive best at a pH of 7.4 to 7.8 and in water with lots of carbon dioxide. So, adding one teaspoon of baking soda per 25 gallons speeds up the cycling a little bit.

Lots of aeration will both speed up the cycling process and keep the smells down (cycling can be smelly!).

The optimum level of nutrients for beneficial bacteria growth is 400 to 600 ppm of ammonia and 200 to 400 ppm of nitrite (per no less than 8 papers and two books). So high levels of either ammonia or nitrite do not stall the cycle.

----------------
Beneficial filter bacteria are aerobic and require oxygen rich water. Having lots of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the tank will inhibit the filter bacteria. The next sentence contradicts the first paragraph by saying aeration helps speed up the cycling process. This is true, aeration helps to drive CO2 out of the water and helps keeps the oxygen levels high. This can help the filter cycle faster.

re: Having 400-600ppm of ammonia in the tank while it was cycling. That much ammonia would burn your nose and eyes any time you went near the tank.

Sorry, I couldn't read any more. Just too hard to read anything these days (that includes stuff online or in books).

I know right?! Its insane

 

[Fishmanic]

His recommemdations on how to fishless cycle are ludicrous. That site isnt worth my time and I wont return.

 

[JuiceBox52]

I've been reading it for fun haha keeps me from being bored because I'm to busy being mildly annoyed and very amused at his suggestions

 

[ChefAlex]

The thoughtful articulation of his articles concerns me because some hobbyists will stumble on his website, take it for face value and think they’ve found the holy grail of aquarium scripture. The parroting of false information that the author supposedly dislikes, is exactly what he is doing, just that he’s the first parrot to squawk.

The website is easy to fall for, it totes a lot of information and supports many different claims but falls flat on honesty. It’s really a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

 

[JuiceBox52]

I agree, and he contradicts himself so many times. I wonder how many people have take his advice and ended up with a failing tank believing it was all on them for doing something wrong apart from his "perfect" advice

 

[JuiceBox52]

Look at these stocking suggestions for 5 and 10 gallon tanks. Who in the world would put 50 two inch fish in a ten gallon? Or 20 in a 5?

 

[ChefAlex]

His guide on stocking Malawi cichlid tanks is wild. He advocates for not stocking aquariums based on inches per gallon or the similar (agreed) but rather by “cubic volume” that a popular YouTuber suggests (no scientific method here whatsoever by the way). He then goes on to suggest, by inches none the less, that a 100 gallon tank can support 781 two-inch Malawi cichlids. I can not imagine what a bacterial soup of water that tank would be with nearly 800 two-inch Malawi’s in it. Not realistic whatsoever in real world, hobbyist based applications.

 

[Aussie_Bristle]

I would love to see @Byron input about this too?!

I’ve seen Colin’s input, was very tame to what I would of thought with what I’ve read what is being said in the article.

I wonder how many peoples fish have died or yet burnt to death from the ammonia and nitrites level he’s trying to put forward?

 

[ChefAlex]

I would love to see @Byron input about this too?!

I’ve seen Colin’s input, was very tame to what I would of thought with what I’ve read what is being said in the article.

I wonder how many peoples fish have died or yet burnt to death from the ammonia and nitrites level he’s trying to put forward?

His stocking claims are supposedly made by square footage of biomedia needed for the measured amount of ammonia that a certain sized fish would produce. Again, he cites no sources for his data assertions.

Almost all of his graphs and charts present data in a linear fashion, and as a data collection expert as he claims to be, he should know better. What he doesn’t mention is that not all scientifically collected data is linear in nature and there are far more variables than he suggests (like metabolism). Again, none of the source’s data he presents as facts is cited, but still make numerous claims to how his logic is scientifically perfect.

 

[Colin_T]

The best thing to do about sites like that, are ignore them. Don't visit them, don't talk about them, and hope not too many people follow the advice on them.

That's one of the things about the internet, it is available to everyone with a computer and internet access, and anyone can put whatever they like on it.

 

[Byron]

Waste of time. Probably bought his degree online. He is not alone, there are many similar sites full of nonsense. I don't even look at a site if I do not know the owner/author personally or by reputation.

 

[JuiceBox52]

The thing about nitrates being equal to beer In humans is interesting enough that I believe many people would take it for fact

 

[Aussie_Bristle]

I haven’t even opened it and read it, just read the comments on here and it sounds like a load of fishy poop.

 

[JuiceBox52]

I haven’t even opened it and read it, just read the comments on here and it sounds like a load of fishy poop.

Lol if you have the time to waste and feel like laughing at someone then go for it