FishProfiles.com Message Forums

When all the eggs hatch during the first rain, I would imagine that all the new fish must create enough waste to prompt a "cycle" in the stream.

If the fish start small and grow up in the area, the bacteria should increase in population right alongside, possibly even quicker.


For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

Exactly my point, in a previous post I already stated that some plants are more effective at removing pollutants than others, certainly with a greater degree of study we may dedicate our attention specifically to high ammonia and nitrate removing varieties, but so far in the hobby it is not common for plants to be selected on those grounds as research has not been done. I have some floating species that at a conservative estimate are anything up to 20 times more effective (judging from my own nitrate readings) than the usual java moss and echinodas etc that festoon my tanks, but because they are a floating species I can only ever devote so much room over to them. The articles prove that plants can assist the chemical breakdown of ammonia for bacteria to then consume it more easily, in itself a useful trait, but it doesnt conclusively prove that the plants themselves are consuming the ammonia in significant amounts,with exxception of very few species, and among these species there is huge variation.

It should be noted that the figures quoted are for plants that are dry weights- bearing in mind the actual biomass of a plant with water included could be anything up to 90-98 times this amount again the figures start to look less impressive compared to actual plant size. Then you take into account the "active " dry content of the plant as oppose to the structural silicates that remain largely chemically and biologically inert (these would typically be disregarded as irrelevant to the study) and the figures go down by another factor. So while amounts of ammonia consumed per hour in dry weight terms look really impressive you have to realise that the distilled table of results shes offering does not give you a first sight accurate represention of functional biomass. When you do the math you still realise thats a hell of a lot of plant needed to help in the absorbtion and alteration of ammonia, not to mention the absorbtion of nitrate which happens only really well under good lighting conditions. There are planty of plants that arent capable of using ammonia directly in noticeable quantity.

When you take all that into account, certainly theres no denying that plants do have an effect on water quality, but it is , as I have always maintained only at levels that are peripherally useful to the aquarist, unless you have specifically chosen species with that end in mind, which is unfortunately beyond the means for your average aquarist.

Add that to the huge amounts of people that still have to do water changes to rid their tanks of detritus for aesthetic reasons and run filters to pick up the ammonia who are quoting their nitrate readings with a bias towards promoting plant favouritism and you start seeing how things dont add up.

Ok if someone shows me a nice 5 year old tank thats basically full of crap , no filtration, no water changes and still has low ammonia and nitrate readings- ill buy it! But basically most photos of aquaria Ive seen from people spouting on about the efficacy of plants are pretty damn clean, sure plants use nutrients but they dont make about 2 lbs of fish poo, the inedible waste cellulose and missed food disappear in year .The dirt is being cleaned away, and regularly too, and with it a large amount of the pollutants they would accredit to the efficiency of their plants.Do they pick the dirt out with tweezers? No! They suck it out with a gravel vac , thusly performing a water change.

If you kept fish in aquaria with no filters and no water changes you would get more objective results, but seeing as most people dont tend to do that, this is why we get the arguement going round in cirles. Add another factor to that- people buying dodgy test kits that dont read accurately in ppm because they are incapable of differentiating between ammonia and nitrates of differing compound structure , often looking within a certain range of tolerance then we get yet another skewed result.

Seriously , go out and buy 4 or 5 different test kits and see if you get the same readings from all of them. Bet you wont. Ive tried it, for no other reason than knowing high nitrate simply had to be the issue on one of my tanks, 2 test kits said it had a problem, and 3 didnt.

And on the whole point about my saying plants cant process ammonia, ok it was a sweeping statement even though it wasnt stated in absolute terms - but I was using it to illustrate this- between dry weight plant tissue and dry weight bacteria, there is absolutely no competition, and when you compare the amount of space that the bacteria take up to do the same job you pretty much realise that why for almost everyone a filter would be and obvious choice over plants. Its like comparing a tree with an eheim 2229. The eheim wins for space everytime. Its also why if someone said to me that "my filter isnt handling the ammonia" id say your overstocked or need a bigger filter, I wouldnt say to him just throw in some plants and it will be all right..



Last edited by longhairedgit at 23-Sep-2005 01:23

Last edited by longhairedgit at 23-Sep-2005 01:28

Just took a quick look at that piece Ingo. The one by Diana Walstad (who those of us who've been around a while refer to as THE Diana Walstad - yes, she's that revered in the aquarium world ). That's quite a revelation.

However, note that most of the work on that page was conducted using Angiosperms as research species (i.e., flowering plants). Since the majority of the flora in my aquaria tend to be Java Ferns and Java Moss, it would be interesting to know what the equilibrium preferences for those two species are.

However, if active plants are capable of absorbing ammonia in the form of ammonium ions directly, and in some cases do so preferentially to nitrate, this would have quite an impact upon cycling. One, it would reduce the ammonium toxicity that would impact upon the fishes, but two, by acting as an ammonium 'sink', those same plants would actually prolong the full development of the filter bed by taking ammonium ions out of the system that would otherwise feed a growing Nitrosomonas bacteria population and thus contribute to the first stage of cycling (it is Nitrosomonas that oxidises ammonium ions to nitrite ions, these ions then being passed on to Nitrobacter bacteria for further oxidation to nitrates). Once a healthy Nitrosomonas population became established, however, the two might work in tandem as ammonia removers.

However, before launching into a full-blown revision of the process of cycling an aquarium based on Diana Walstad's article, one should take heed that while the majority of species in her article seemed to favour ammonium ions, there were some that favoured nitrates. Among them being Amazon Swords, Echinodorus species. So exercise care over this new information until all the data is in for all our favourite aquarium plants!


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

when i did a cycle on my 29 with 4 zebra danios, i had no problems with the fish, they were actice, and they even breed like a week or two of being in the tank, i now have fry from then and they are still healthy

its me sk8freak20...i need to get premie so i can change my name back

longhairedgit,

And you must think I am not writing an answer because I am too lazy to read through your humongous posts .

Now seriously, how about this:

From [link=The Krib]http://www.thekrib.com/Plants/Fertilizer/roots.html" style="COLOR: #ff6633[/link]

… since studies have clearly and consistently shown that aquatic plants prefer ammonia over nitrate.

Or, even better, this one, taken from [link=Aqua Botanic]http://www.aquabotanic.com/plants_and_biological_filtration.htm" style="COLOR: #ff6633[/link] from an article by Diana Walstad (you know who that is, right?):

Aquatic Plants Prefer Ammonium Over Nitrates

and a more detailed quote from the same article:

Aquatic plants, then, are much more than ornaments or aquascaping tools. They remove ammonia from the water. Furthermore, they remove it within hours. When setting up a planted tank, there is no need to wait 8 weeks to prevent ‘new tank syndrome’. (Nitrifying bacteria require several weeks to establish themselves in new tanks and make biological filtration fully functional.) Thus, I have several times set up a new tank with plants and fish all on the same day.

If you concede that plants are capable of creating Nitrate levels of 0, then – in particular after reading the second article- you have to come to the conclusion that plants are even better in removing ammonia.

How about that, ha?

Ingo

PS: It sounds to good to be true though

---

Proud Member of the New Jersey Aquatic Gardeners Club

No im not giving up just yet ingo (me ? never!) lol. People who wish to go light on fish and heavy on plants will need nitrate- this is true, but nitrate is a by product of cycling and a healthy tank already produces quite a lot of it. Adding nitrate to a tank doesnt actually help to cycle it, as far as the filter is concerned nitrate is a waste product, so adding it to the water doesnt actually speed up or improve cycling. The whole point of cycling is to eliminate the ammonia and nitrite- the deadlier toxins to fish - produced from decaying matter and fish respiration, and you rely on the filter for this as it would take a hell of a lot of plants and a truly huge tank for the spikes in ammonia and nitrite. Plants will help suck up some nitrate , thus making the necessity for water changes less frequent, but they dont really help with the dangerous phase of cycling as they have no real effect on ammonia and nitrite.

Most keepers will be much less worried about nitrate levels as fish are more tolerant of them than ammonia and nitrite levels,a high nitrate level is most easily and effectively solved by regular water changes. If your tank is producing significant nitrate that plants would enjoy then basically it is already cycled, so using plants to help cycle a tank is like locking the door after the horse has bolted. Concievably its possible that decaying matter from plants and various soils and detritus stuck around plants roots would produce ammonia and that in turn would feed the filter, but its far faster to add fish food or raw ammonia to get the filter started.

Cycling is all about adding the toxins to the water that the bacteria in the filter will feed on, at a sustainable level, thus creating a culture that is large enough to keep handling such wastes. When aquatic horticulturalists add ammonia to the water they do it so that when the processes of decay set in nitrate will be produced, thus fertilising the plants, but plants in themselves have no way to provoke or stimulate this chemical change, only bacteria will do this.

In a planted, filter free,fish free environment adding ammonia will eventually lead to the production of nitrate as long as there is gaseous exchange, and some water flow its possible even without a filter, but filters are basically houses containing media that allow for a massive surface area to be colonised by bacteria in optimal conditions, so basically think of a filter as replacing the need to have a tank 5 to 20 times the size where the natural surfaces like plant leaves and substrates would be the growth surface for the bacteria.Basically this is the system that allows you too keep fish in a small body of water as oppose to needing a lake , pond or river.

Most decent filters that cope admirably with fish wastes in typical aquaria will have a surface volume available for bacterial growth to the tune of several hundred feet- and in some cases even several hundred metres. For plants to create the same surface area (not forgetting that not all plants have a great many suitable surfaces)you would need literally hundreds or thousands of them. The osmotic nutritive movement and gaseous exchange of plants will have some effect on pollutants , but much of this will be happening at the water surface , a resource that is severely limited in your average aquaria(if you think of the principle of a vast natural (and very weak) protien skimmer at work you wont be far off.

In a perfect world ingos reasoning would be perfect, desired and practical, but the natural processes he describes that would allow plants to cycle tanks only happen in vast areas, just as it happens in nature.In nature however, the volume of water per fish is absolutely massive- while it is true that some fish do live in condensed areas with high population there are often huge river systems and weather systems providing bacterial relief gently. Millions of gallons of water, and millions of miles of suitable bacteria growing surfaces, and those helpful plants exceed the volume of fish, yet again by thousands, possibly millions to one. In a small aquaria , unless the stocking level is tiny we need to use filters, and plants are not of huge benefit.

Not that you need a excuse to use plants, they do certainly take the edge off nitrate levels, thus reducing but rarely eliminating the need for water changes,and they look great, help psychologically acclimate a huge number of fish (perhaps their most important function) and provide breeding sites and a useful ph buffering and gaseous balancing capabilty.I consider plants hugely useful for the long term maintenance of aquaria, but when it comes to cycling at the beginning, they dont do much except help you fish feel psychologically more comfortable at a time of high stress.

Depending on the size of the tank, there is a potential for plants to aid you in not needing to perform water changes during cycling, thus helping the filter to get on with the initiation of its bacteral culture undisturbed, but rarely during the cycling of a tank would the nitrate be more of a worry than the nitrite or ammonia , so plant uses in this respect are limited.

Africaman, Woolworths, cleaning aisle, SUPREME brand

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

Ok, quick comment on this 'grey area'.

[1] Cycling Using Fishes.

Pros :

[1a] You get to see fishes moving about in the aquarium during the process as opposed to a bare aquarium;
[1b] As fishes produce a steady flow of ammonia, this will build up the filter bed in a more controlled fashion than the sudden appearance of ammonia added by hand;
[1c] If species and numbers are chosen carefully, the process can be completed without exxcessive stress loads being placed upon the fishes;

Cons :

[1d] The margin for error is such that a beginner could make catastrophic mistakes without an experienced helping hand;
[1e] Many people here have a natural and understandable aversion to stressing their fishes, and would prefer to place them in a matured and 'ready to run' aquarium.


[2] Cycling Without Fishes.

Pros:

[2a] Any mistakes on the part of a beginner will not result in catastrophic loss of prized/expensive fishes;
[2b] If conducted with due care, can produce a mature filter bed just as quickly as method [1], which will then be ready to take on staged additions of fishes without undue stress being placed upon said fishes.

Cons :

[2c] Staring at a bare aquarium for six weeks (especially if a bacterial bloom rears its ugly head) is an experience that might prove to be a severe test of dedication;
[2d] Establishing the filter bed using [controlled inputs of an ammonia source again requires some skill and patience.

The practical upshot of all this is that regardless of which method is chosen, those attributes I repeatedly push as essential for a fishkeeper to possess, namely patience and a willingness to learn, need to be in place for there to be a reasonable chance of success. And, having seen some absolute disasters in my time (I've been called out to bail people out of their woes because word has got around that I keep fish successfully), it's pretty plain that the scope for catastrophic howlers is pretty wide.

However, for those who intend pursuing fishless cycling, I would recommend that ammonia sources are added in a controlled fashion, mimicking where possible the actual ammonia output of any fishes that would be present in an aquarium for best results. I've already likened the process of adding a large quantity all in one go to dumping a dead buffalo in someone's living room - that living room is going to be pretty unpleasant in a short space of time. Adding small quantities regularly, however (I achieved this by 'feeding imaginary fish' with food - adding food as if I was feeding actual fishes) is more akin to popping fresh bacon rashers in the freezer every night - the householder gets to wake up to the prospect of nice bacon sandwiches for breakfast. The same goes for the filter bacteria: add a food source in a regular, controlled fashion, and chances are the filter bed buildup will be better in the long run. The desirable bacteria will have chance to multiply, while there will be little or no excess to feed a bloom of less welcome bacteria. It may not always work out like that, but chances are any bacterial bloom will be much more short-lived with controlled inputs.

The beauty of this, of course, is that it is applicable to all aquaria, including those setups such as Rift Lake aquaria where plants of the kind seen in rainforest aquaria cannot feature for a variety of reasons. However, since an algal presence is desirable in a Rift Lake aquarium, the scheme can be modified to take account of this: add small controlled quantities of nitrate fertiliser alongside the ammonia source to give algae a nutrient source to grow during the cycling phase, and by the time the cycling phase is complete, the aquarium will be doubly ready for fishes such as Mbuna. The system can be adapted to marine aquaria too, but marine aquaria are a good order of magnitude more complex to manage than freshwater aquaria (at least) which is why they have their own separate forum space!

Regardless of what method is selected, though, I can't stress this enough. Plan ahead first. A few hours spent planning, creating a timetable, devising modifications to implement in case the smooth transition deviates from the plan, and generally getting oneself prepared before a penny is spent, usually results in [1] greater success [2] fewer pennies spent achieving the desired result, and [3] most importantly of all, happier fish.


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

longhairedgit,

I sure don’t mind provocative statements, especially when handled like you did .

Nevertheless, I strongly believe you are off when you talk about planted tanks.

- For one thing, I do not believe that 1kg of plant matter would be needed to equal 2g of fish. I cannot match your educational background in this field and as such I am willing to give this equation some credibility, but I am sure that I would have read any reference to it somewhere during my rather intensive research about planted tanks.

- For my next point, I would like to quote you:

… and the stat was really concerning that other potential toxin , nitrate. So basically plants are even more completely irrelevant to cycling than previously mentioned.

Are you aware that planted tanks need the addition of Nitrate in fertilizers? None of my 2 tanks ever showed any readings of Nitrates naturally (and I heard that from various other people with planted tanks as well). I always had to add them in order to achieve balanced plant fertilization. This is a point where I am not willing to give you credit as you are most certainly plain wrong (sorry for the strong words, but there is no doubt in my mind, convince me otherwise if you can).

I hope that your conclusive words above don’t mean that you removed yourself from this thread as I would like to further discuss the matter with you.

Ingo

Last edited by LITTLE_FISH at 11-Sep-2005 07:01

---

Proud Member of the New Jersey Aquatic Gardeners Club

i think rather than argue the pros and cons why not Promote the safest methods for both cases. i have kept fish only a relativly short time (12months.) but the whole cycling thing still gets to me? the is so much information out there concening both fishless and fish methods. and then what happens in specific circomstances? ie keeping africans- you cant put plants in an african tank they'l get eaten and polute the water, so what do u do then? and what if you want to buy a large adult fish like a 7+ inch oscar? if u put him in a tank he will die in his own waste in days? what if u cant buy pure ammonia? (i live in australia and i cant find pure amonia anywhere) as for using the fish food method how much do u add and how often? when do u know its safe to add fish? ive had a look around the net and asked my lfs but i still havent found a comprehensive guide to it? i think perhaps less time should be spent arguing and more educating those new to the hobby and trying to define a best method for cycling?

well, if you were dopey enough to buy fish you didn't really want in the first place, you may need to reevaluate your forward planning skills!

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

Totally agreed there. Again folks are really thinking about this stuff, which is great. Furthers the hobby and all that.

Im not trying to sound militant, forgive me if I do - if I was I wouldnt keep fish myself. As ive said I already can see that people can make using fish to cycle work.I did it myself when I was starting out, but now I feel as if I know better. I just wanted to get a feel of general opinion out there and see what reasoning people had. Its also one of those big grey areas in the hobby and I thought it important that we chew it over a bit.

I just like to make sure people are up to speed and that traditional practices dont blind people to the advantages of new technology. I want everyone to know out there that there are options and if it saves a few fishy lives and makes people think about water quality and the finer parts of fishkeeping, our responsibility to our pets, the cycles and systems of nature, and the moral status of the hobby in public view - im a happy man I have to say I have been extremely pleased with the level and quality of discussion that everyone has had, ok theres been a few grouchy tempers along the way, but at the end of the day we bury our egos and discuss it. Thats a damn good sign.

I think this whole issue has been really worth discussing in depth , and if I felt if a few of you thought I was being deliberately provocative or a complete animal rights maniac it would be worth it. ( Plus I confess- I tooooadally was being deliberately provocative I feel no guilt cos it really lifted the conversation away from the usual advice about not keeping a goldfish in a brandy glass type conversations and it also provided real enthusiasts some meaty stuff to wade through. )


Thanks so much everyone. ( not that you have to stop discussing it lol, all viewpoints gratefully recieved )

Mind you-there is one thing about which I may offend and yet still be provocative about...

What precisely happens to all the fish you used to cycle the tanks if you hadnt planned it for them in the first place hmmmm ? lol.Is it a case of MTS, FLIDS, or NEWTS ???


Last edited by longhairedgit at 10-Sep-2005 21:57

Of course it makes sense Git Its just that ignoring well-managed versions of other methods doesn't

Young kids have enough trouble cycling, let alone fishless.
Some adults have the attention span of a gnat and if you got them to go fishless they would dump in a massive amount of fish at the end to compensate.
In the perfect world, they simply wouldn't be allowed to keep fish, but then where do you draw the line? If it went too much further I'd be sidelined too.

explaining the concept of the nitrogen cycle is always far easier when using the traditional model, it sinks in. Ammonnia addition is too abstract a lot of the time, nebs just cannot get their head around it.

BTW git, you just touched on the trickiest part of explaining cycling WHERE DO THE BACTERIA COME FROM? It seems to always trip people up. Its not in the water... I just bleached the gravel, so its not their either... not on the glass... hmmm. Try telling people that they are in the air and on your hands and on plants and all that jazz, they'll look at you like you are touched in the head.

I personally think that if you are capable of cycling a tank with fish, without any signs of stress, discomfort or damage from the inhabitants, and no readable signs, then there is no problem. If you can do that, it is no more or less cruel than a fishless cycle in my eyes.

I don't think trying to do something purely because it is *natural* in aquaria will ever work. Its essentially a big glass cage, you cant really avoid that fact.
You can take inspiration from nature and adjust it to suit your needs, however it must be understood that the behaviour of things within a tank will often differ greatly from those in nature.


[EDIT: corralline algae does that? cool I had no idea!]


Last edited by Callatya at 10-Sep-2005 21:04

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

On a continuation of the water cycling in nature thing- ok I will concede that seasonal pools will go through some cycling- but that doesnt mean that there was total bacterial death when the pool dried- there will be dormancy also. In contained space we also give fish no room to navigate away from toxins as they would naturally wish to do.

It is reasonable to suppose, when you take into consideration bacteria has been activated after pulling them out of glaciers during the taking of core samples. Under most dried pools are pockets of preserved bacteria held by dormant turtles, amphibians, crocs, lungfish crustaceans,patches of subterranean moisture and mud etc, these are released when rains come, quickly repopulating those pools as there will be a high organic content in the mud- corpses spoiled eggs etc for the bacteria to feed on, all newly pulverised by seasonal dehydration and rehydration thus making food instantly available.

The fish contained in these water systems are not the ones people typically cycle with however. Killies are born in these conditions with the eggs on a kind of time delay often with the food they feed on eg various shrimp and insects and microfoods often being born into the water weeks before, thus cycling the pools they live in before they arrive. Sometimes they defeat some of the rigours of growing up by having simpler gill occillae that are not as vulnerable to ammonia. Juveniles of many species have different needs to that of adult fish, otherwise how would you ever explain the fish that live in different salinities and ph and nitrates/nitrites etc as they migrate out to sea as adults?

Bettas have labyrinth organs to help them cope,lungfish obviously are very tolerant of water conditions and gas levels ,but most fish are not in this league of survivability.


The fact is that most of the freshwater in which the fish we keep live is rainwater, and this comes from hillsides and mountains (sometimes over woodlands , forests,and acres of saturated grasslands where it is filtered through rocks and over mosses, algaes, weeds, gravels, and silts etc all holding bacteria,through thousands of tributaries underground creeks and soils, so the process begins very early and most of the permanent fish will live some way down stream, often weeks away from the source of first bacterial inclusion into the water. So as I said , while fish will experience some degree of change many will never experience the ammonia and nitrate levels that can occur in an aquarium during cycling.

Even in a tank which never is subjected to specifically intentioned cycling if you keep the filter running long enough some bacterial growth will occur in the filter as dust settles on the water and minute levels of ammonia will occur. The bacteria that causes beneficial filtration is pretty much omnipresent. Even straight tapwater will eventually be colonised once the chlorine completely dissipates in a few weeks. Because although the water is chlorinated and filtered it all run through thousands of miles of old pipe containing detritus, dead bacteria and so on. Especially outdoors,whewre the bacteria is literally everywhere and the whole process may start much earlier than you think. Even clear and drinkable mountain water may contain detritus and peats and minerals from a range of sources, not least bird poo, rotting carcasses , fallen leaves, organic humous layers in soil, and billions of insects, even layers in the soil that contain organic content that is hundreds if not thousands of years old. So the raw materials are all there.

The only reason cycling is so difficult for us in the home is because or the use of chlorine in tapwater.There is no such thing as sterile water in nature.Only could it ever be in rain during the early stages of evaporation,and scientists have taken samples of bacteria from clouds.As soon as rain hits ground other substances will dilute into it. Sometimes even the process of falling from clouds could cause raindrops to pick up insects and dust etc on the way down, so a lot of rain isnt just pure h2o, and a fair amount of it will contain organic matter. Water has its own static field, so as soon as a drop is formed it will be pulling small particles toward itself. Ever seen how a rubbed ruler can deflect the course of running tapwater?

Dont forget that most fish who live in ponds as pets are put there by man, this isnt a parallel to nature. And in pools where there are the most species- these tend to be fairly stable permanent pools.

We all know there are occurances of natural die off in ponds- but the point is the fish do tend to die or have extraordinary means of surviving this or investing the future in their unborn offspring. None of this is relevant to fishkeeping unless you have those specific species.

So to all intents and purposes putting a fish through cycling is not natural, unless you consider their resultant risk of death in this respect natural too.Obviously by one token it is natural -its also an extreme- but its not desireable, and as I explained since the process of bacterial colonisation happens much earlier on than you would imagine I would stand by the comment that the cycling of fish is basically pretty unnatural.

I dont think people buy fish to see if they can survive the cycling period for its own sake, just to prove its natural for a fish to die under exposure to these chemical levels. They want to keep the fish ALIVE.

I mean if you want a natural statistic - about 99% of all fish laid as eggs are born to die, as they are eaten, or killed through various other reasons. Would you advocate killing the weakest 99 fish out of a group of 100 in captive conditions having paid £2.50 -£100 odd quid a fish because its natural? Its just a daft point.


I was advocating a method of cycling that involves minimal risk to pet fish -doesnt that make sense to you?

In a way fishless cycling , although it involves unnatural synthetically produced compounds has MORE in common with the previously mentioned analogy of bacterial colonisation of water happening prior to its eventual deposition in larger watercourses or lakes. In using fishless cycling we are prepreparing water conditions for fish- which to me is emulating nature more than the equivalent of dumping a lake fish into a mountain stream (ie less mature water) which is kinda what we do when cycling an aquarium with fish.


The whole hobby of fishkeeping is unnatural , but we strive to emulate natural conditions for fish for their enhancement- not to test their strengths. When a method like fish cycling can be left behind due to the advances of fishkeeping technology , shouldnt we be keen to embrace the change? Especially as some beginners may find it difficult to learn all about water quality in time enough or with experience enough to preserve their fish during the process.At least with no fish in the tank during cycling theyre risking nothing, and relying on that test kit to read the right parameters before putting fish in, and basically thats pretty much all the pros have to go on. It levels the playing field for beginners.

Isnt that a good thing?

couple of other points that people brought up-
1) That people who dont go on here wont care anyway- of course this is true, but by the same token the same dimwit that doesnt actively look for quality information for his fish is to my mind just as likely to listen through his ignorant ears to that font of all wisdom - " The bloke down the pub".

The "bloke down the pub" will probably in his typically half assed way have heard that people use fish to cycle tanks, he will however have no clue as to how it is properly done, but that wont stop him advising that it should be done anyway. I use the analogy of the bloke down the pub, but this could just as easily apply to the teenager who works in the fish shop who is more interested about his girlfriends every move via text than actually reading anything about fish. So when a customer comes in the shop a total uninitiate, he will recommend that they buy a danio and make it suffer for 5 weeks to cycle a tank id use for a coffee cup.

If however we recommend the use of fishless cycling and it becomes the phrase on everyones lips- well, as previously stated by another member- at least the instructions are on the box. Might save a few thousand fishy lives. You never know. The point is that we have a responsibility to think about how information is disseminated from the advice we give here. Generally simplicity is best. ( ok i know thats a fine comment from someone as long-winded as me but you get the point )

2) The issue of plants consuming not enough chemicals to help cycling a tank. Ok I read the stuff about plants having to be as much as 500 times the biomass of fish to consume the waste that fish produces- in a couple issues of practical fishkeeping magazine, and some some documentation produced by the jardin de plantes in paris while i was studing the animal care courses and prepping new aquaria at hartpury college, and even baench touches on the issue. Besides which plants do almost nothing to touch the ammonia or nitrite which is handled by biological decomposition and the stat was really concerning that other potential toxin , nitrate. So basically plants are even more completely irrelevant to cycling than previously mentioned. They can cushion the rate of gaseous exchange and therefore help control ph, but aside from that they dont do a lot. Its not the same as the much higher nitrate and other toxin removing properties of corraline algae that marine fishkeepers use. Its just not the same group of organisms.People often confuse the usefulness of the two as being the same. Theyre not.

Im not saying that chemical control using plants isnt possible, and it becomes easier the bigger the tank- ive seen one aquarium at my lfs- an 8 footer 4 feet deep that must be close, and one of my own tanks is (or was) pretty close to the 500 times biomass. 500 Times is the upper limit of estimation obviously, but 50 would be ridiculous. If it was 50 hardy anyone would need to buy a filter - one large echinoda probably would have enough biomass to provide chemical assistance enough for a small school of tetras- obviously this isnt so. I have a tank set up with those proportions, and trust me- it needs a filter- very much so. These estimates also change for coldwater etc, as temperature changes the metabolic rates of fish more than plants. In a tropical tank with temps in the 80's tho, its a very , very high proportion of plants needed. Definately in the hundreds, maybe less if you use a lot of floating plants as they draw nutrient more directly from the water, and faster than rooted plants.







Last edited by longhairedgit at 10-Sep-2005 20:57

Last edited by longhairedgit at 10-Sep-2005 21:10

Of course the difference being in the case of a stream that periodically dries up being that it gets, in effect, continuous water changes from the source once it reappears. Something that doesn't happen in the average aquarium. Even a small stream gets more water flowing through it in a minute than is replaced during one of my water change & gravel vac operations in my Panda Fun Palace - which probably carries the ammonia from the fish downstream in any case.

A closer natural approximation to an aquarium would be a static pond that undergoes periodic dessication, such as the habitats of certain annual Killies. There, the water would be potentially subject to an ammonia buildup, though again this would be mitigated by volume - even a 'small' pond of this kind would have a much larger volume of water than most home aquaria. Even 'small' ponds of this kind can end up containing tens of thousands of gallons of water once they've been filled up by returning rainfall. A fish is going to have its wastes diluted by a fair degree in that kind of volume, and in the case of these ponds, the fish that make their appearance are [1] small as adults, and [2] appear first as fry. Even many thousands of fry are going to make only a tiny impact pollution wise in 10,000 gallons or so.

Plus, there is always the possibility that the native substrate bacteria reappear much more quickly in that setup than in an aquarium, because the species of bacteria involved have probably evolved to survive the same dessication cycles. Bacteria of many species can encyst themselves to weather out adverse conditions, and it's entirely possible that millions of bacteria start making an appearance and provide a working substrate before the fish eggs have hatched. The dried mud may contain, in addition to the annual Killie eggs, billions of encysted substrate bacteria waiting for the return of the rains. Which duly become alive and functioning the moment that the pond is back to maximum water capacity.

All in all, it's difficult to alight upon a scenario in nature that genuinely matches aquarium cycling. In the case of the annual Killie pond, the conditions akin to cycling are much more likely to occur as the pond is drying out, and the water volume is diminishing. Under those circumstances, the pollutant levels will build up and potentially overwhelm the dwindling populations of bacteria still able to function in the shrinking water volume, as more and more of the pond bottom ceases to be covered by water and is removed from the substrate's effective processing capacity. But by then the adult fish in the pond are doomed anyway. If they aren't snapped up by opportunisitc predators, they'll end up being shrivelled to a crisp in the heat of the tropical sun, and either end up in the bellies of land scavengers or become maggot food. Plus, in the final days of the pond's current seaosnal cycle, oxygen depletion will also see off a fair amount of the fish population, because [1] the fish will be using it all up at an accelerated rate [2] the temperature will be climbing, reducing the available oxygen in the water anyway, and [3] any plant life will similarly be reduced as the pond shrinks, worsening matters still further.


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

Am I alone in thinking that using fish to cycle tanks is inhumane and causes needless suffering?

Again and again I see supposed fish experts recommend using various fish, hardy though they may be, I hardly think exposing them to ammonia and nitrate spikes that cause suffering, debilitation, and death is a nice thing to do.

There must be a dozen products you can use to cycle tanks and anyone who already has a mature tank or knows someone with a mature tank can use the materials they already have without ever risking a fish.

Even using fish food to cycle a tank does work, but it is less effective and does take longer- so what are we saying here- that its acceptable to risk a fish's life to save about two weeks of time ?

It seems ridiculous that people should keep on recommending the practice to beginners too, as this will only perpetuate suffering when there is no real need.Why do they do it? - Do they do it to allieviate their own guilt ? Do they do it because life is cheap to them?

Surely using fish to cycle tanks is against every good moral principle the hobby has, so why then do people not see the contradiction or how wrong the suffering they cause is? Using fish to cycle tanks probably leads to fish deaths to the tune of tens if not hundreds of thousands per year worldwide- so isnt it time that we considered our responsibility in the matter and did something to prevent it?

Personally I dont equate this issue with something like the usage of feeder fish- because obviously with feeder fish, the carnivory that creates a need for them is totally natural, and when it comes to fish killing fish the end is usually quick. A fish used to cycle a tank may suffer for weeks , possibly months . Even if it survives it may suffer permanent damage to gill structures, eyes and so on.Unlike the usage of feeder fish the cycling of tanks using fish is completely avoidable.

Does the fact that humans trawl the seas, grind up even rare species for fertiliser and eat millions of tons of fish really cheapen the lives of our pets, or should we strive to do our best for every species we keep?

Im really fascinated to know what plausible reasons or more likely excuses they have for perpetuating a practice that is totally unecessary.

Your opinions please. For, or against, and why.







Last edited by longhairedgit at 09-Sep-2005 05:45

longhairedgit,

I find your statement “500 times the biomass of plant to fish” very interesting, in particular when explained on a 4 foot tank and one neon. Can you be so kind and point me to a site where I can read more about it. The only statement I know of is a 90% plant and 10% fish biomass. Are you sure that it is 500 times, or is it 500% (in this case 1 Neon being 2 grams = 100% would be “balanced” by 10 grams of plants = 5 times the biomass of the fish and as such 500%)?

I understand your concerns about advocating a fish cycle to beginners. I am under the impression that (at least) most of us state rather clearly that stocking has to be small and spaced out, that a starter - like Bio Spira - could be added, that ammonia etc. values have to be checked to avoid spikes, and whatever else we can think of to explain the process as good as we can.
You talk also about all these people that never even go to sites like FP; well we cannot help them anyway as they wouldn’t even see what we are writing here.

To sum it up, I think people here are presenting their opinions that have been formed on what worked for them (including myself). Sometimes, these opinions are opposites and cause heavy debates within the forums. But as long as these debates are constructive (as I think this one here is) they are good for this hobby as they show an “issue” from various angles.

Ingo

---

Proud Member of the New Jersey Aquatic Gardeners Club

One comment i noted though in the arguements which i feel absolutely compelled to refute tho- it was stated that cycling fish is "natural". This is obviously total rubbish because when was a river lake or sea last cycled? 100 million years ago maybe?

Note the word "temporary" in my post. I'm not talking about large lakes or oceans, but small streams and ponds that dry up and completely refill the next season. Around here, there are many streams that get completely bone dry during the summer. But during the winter and spring, they are the homes of several different species of fish. I find it hard to believe that when the stream refills every winter, it does not go through some sort of cycling process.

Also, there are many species of killifish that require their eggs to be semi-dried out and rehydrated to hatch, to simulate the drying up of their native streams. When all the eggs hatch during the first rain, I would imagine that all the new fish must create enough waste to prompt a "cycle" in the stream.



Last edited by Cory Addict at 10-Sep-2005 02:16

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I really don't know on the plant issue, all I know is that the levels are always far lower if I use hornwort than anything else. Java fern, Anubias, Elodea, no big diference but hornwort seems to provide some benefit. Its not foolproof mind you, it only has minimal difference as far as I can tell, but it does have an effect.

Perhaps it is more becsause if you plan to cycle a planted tank, by the time you have the plants in and have given it a day or so to settle, the cycle has already begun? Maybe plant people have a slightly better handle on the whole picture than just the mechanics of cycling? (i'm not really a plant person, but i've found a lot of plant people know oodles on water quality etc)



For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

One thing id like to mention on the plant front tho - is that ive repeatedly read articles and reports that say you need approximately 500 times the biomass of plant to fish to cycle nitrate and other pollutants to the point when filtration becomes unecessary.So I was kind of wondering how putting plants in helps to buffer a tank from pollutant spikes or indeed help to cycle the aquarium?

Cos to do it would be like having a 4 foot tank totally filled with plants to handle the waste from 1 neon tetra. The plants that process higher levels of pollutants are nearly all floating species- therefore there is a definite limit on how many you can have that will actually help the water quality to a significant degree.I totally understand using plants for oxygenation (except at night), for providing natural surroundings for fish to improve their behaviour, and sure they look great- but the figures just dont add up on the water quality issue.

Plants will release oxygen when lit and co2 when dark- this would affect ph, but it wouldnt really produce ammonia or a product that a filter would process. Perhaps its the dead leaves etc rotting in the water that help to cycle the tank, as the decomposition produces ammonia - which in turn feeds the filter?





Last edited by longhairedgit at 10-Sep-2005 01:25