FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I have a 55 gal. tank which has been cycling for 14 days now.
I started with to many comets (as you all know) to start the cycle, after the first 7 days I removed most of them and left only 6 which were removed on the 10 day. During that time starting the 4th day I was doing water changes 10% -- 20% at a time and started to use Cycle as directed. And my LFS has given me the products to neutralize the problems, but they NEVER change!
pH: 7.2-7.4
Ammonia: 1.0
Nitrite: .25
Nitrate: 3.0
I did a 50% water change today, and the only thing that dropped was the Ammonia .25 - .50
Water out of the tap:
pH: 6.6
Ammonia, Nitrite, and Nitrate all 0's
What am I doing wrong!
Thanks

I don't see anything wrong. A cycle takes around 1month. Sometimes up to 2months. Bacterial products like Cycle sometimes shorten it a bit but in my experience it's usually no more than a week sooner. Most of the time it seemed to only cut off a few days. You just have to have patience when dealing with a fish tank. The ammonia to nitrite phase is usually the longest. Once the ammonia starts to drop(without constant water changes) then the cycle should only take around a week to finish.

Did you remove all the fish? You need something in the tank to produce ammonia or the bacteria will starve. Then you'll have to cycle the tank all over again. The best way would be to just add fish food even without fish in the tank. The food will break down the same as fish waste and create ammonia which will feed the bacteria and cycle the tank.

Hi,
When cycling a tank, any water changes simply "dilute the
soup" and prolong the time that it will take the tank to
cycle.
In a cycling tank it is normal for ammonia to top out
around 6 and the nitrite can hit 10 before the nitrate
readings begin. That is why cycling a tank with fish
demands "hardy" fish and the process is slow so the hardy
fish sort of adapt to the changing water conditions.

Only when the cycling fish display signs of stress, should
one do a water change.

A few comets in that tank may have been fine. However,
as Sham mentions, with the fish out of the tank, you must
provide something for the fledgling bactera colonies to
feed on. If not, they will rapidly starve to death, polute
the tank, and you will need to start the cycling process
all over again.

I'm not a big fan of tossing fish food in a fishless
tank and letting it rot. If you are going to keep
fish out of the tank and still cycle it, you have
then switched over to the "fishless cycling" method and
must add pure, unscented, ammonia.

Here is a link for fishless cycling:

http://badmanstropicalfish.com/articles/article14.html

Hope this helps...
Frank


-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

Hi;

Useing some danios and white clouds, it took near seven weeks to cycle my 65 gal tank.
I did use bio support along the way and cycle towards the end.....
Seven weeks!

Hi,
Thank you all for your input!
I have never had this problem in the 15+ yrs of having this tank, including 5 moves in that time. I had always used Fritz-zyme # 7 and were able to put my fish back in after 3-4 days with no losses or chemistry spikes (that included a complete cleaning and new water).
The thing that gets me is, why is my pH so high 7.2 - 7.4, when it's 6.6 out of the tap. I have nothing out of the norm that wasn't in there before, and never had this problem.
Thanks Again,
Todd

Hi,
Is this new tank the result of a recent move?
I suspect that the pH of the tank is what the water will
be after it degasses. The entrapped CO2 vents off into
the atmosphere and the water will shift to more alkaline
values of pH as that happens. Try drawing a glass of
water, testing its pH, and then leave it set out where
your family cat or dog won't slurp some and test it 24
hours or so later.
Also, check with your city water supply company. Ask for
a readout of the water they are supplying. Frequently they
put out slightly acidic water, especially when the source
is a naturally high pH to prevent caking the insides of the
pipes with minerals. You can do that online, or call and
ask for a printout.

Since you say nothing has changed, I assume that you have
not added any different rocks that include carbonate, such
as limestone. I would think it is the water supply.

Frank


-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

When cycling a tank, any water changes simply "dilute the
soup" and prolong the time that it will take the tank to
cycle.

No. No, no, no, no, no. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the equilibrium process that occurs in a fishtank.

The equilibrium in question is the balance of the rate of production of ammonia (lets call this rp) by the fish and the rate of consumption of ammonia by the bacteria (rc). When the rates are not equal, some accumulation occurs. We all know this, since fish placed in a brand new tank are producing ammonia but no bacteria are there yet, so rp>>rc. But, eventually the colony grows and when the tank is completely cycled, rp=rc. This is good, since that means that there will never be any accumulation when the rates are balanced.

I like to write out the math equation, it is simpler for me to see:

accumulation = rp - rc

So, when rp=rc, accumulation = 0. Which means that no ammonia is accumulating in the tank.

But, if you notice, there is no mention whatsoever of the concentration of ammonia at any one time. It is only important that the rate of production and the rate of consumption is balanced. At any time, the rate of production is only a function of the number and type of fish in the tank -- it does not matter on what the concentration of ammonia is at that point. Similarly, the rate of consumption by the bacteria is only a function of the size of the bacterial colony. Not on what concentration of ammonia is available.

Now, the funny thing about this equation above, is that it does not matter if the concentration of ammonia is zero, 10 ppm, or even 1500 ppm. If rp=rc, that concentration won't change. In real life, since there is an excess of food, the ammonia-consuming bacteria will continue to grow, and rc becomes greater than rp. Then, negative accumulation occurs. This is the point in the cycling process the ammonia start to go back down. At this point, rc>rp. And, at this point, the tank is actually cycled for ammonia. The rate of consumption is greater than or equal to the rate of production, so excess ammonia will not be produced to harm the fish.

Because the exact concentration at any time is not important, you can do water changes at any point in the cycling process without slowing it down whatsoever. It is the rates that balance, that really define cycling, not the concentration. Taking tests over several days, and when it reads zero several days in a row is an indicator that no accumulation is occurring.

In fact, recent research (Siikavuopio and Saether, Aquaculture, 2006) shows that fish exposed to high levels of ammonia and nitrite early in their life had significantly reduced growth, that is, they don't grow as big at they would have otherwise. Another journal article (Ackerman et al., PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY, 2006) showed that "fish previously exposed to subacute levels of ammonia were more susceptible to pathogenic challenge" That is, fish exposed to levels of ammonia, even non-immediately-deadly (subacute), increases their susceptibility to disease for the rest of their life. Exposure to ammonia weakens their immune system permanently. So, I think that it is vital to keep those ammonia levels low.

And this can be done by doing water changes, even very large ones (50-75%) if you match the temp, hardness, and pH, during the cycling process. Water changes only change the "snapshot" of the current picture, it does not change the rates of production or consumption at that point in time. And, by doing water changes, you keep your fish safer from the possible permanent damage that can be done by exposure to pollutants.

I've always questioned the no water change rule. It just doesn't seem like it would make a difference what the ammonia level was since the bacteria will only multiply so fast irregardless of whether you have 1ppm or 6ppm. If there's some leftover at the end of the day then the bacteria is still multiplying as fast as it can. I've always done water changes to keep ammonia below 2-3ppm and always cycled a tank in the normal amount of time. If the fish are actually showing stress it means I've waited way too long to do a water change and I do several over the next couple days. The only time I had a slower cycle was when I let the ammonia go over 8ppm and then the level even seems too toxic for the bacteria to survive properly.

I'd rather go with pure liquid ammonia for fishless cycling but it's near impossible to find. I searched every store within 3 cities around me when I cycled my first tank and only found 1 store that had it. They quit selling it a year later and now have blue ammonia dyed using some copper compound. I know lots of other people have had the same kind of luck. The fish food seems to work just as well as having fish waste break down in the tank and so far I haven't had it cause any issues. A cocktail shrimp works even better with less mess to clean up after the cycle but can cause the tank to smell.

Hi,
When the RP=RC then, Accumulation (Ammonia) by definition,
= 0.
When RP is greater than RC then Accumulation (Ammonia) is
measurable.

If that is the case, and by definition, it is.
Then IF ammonia is measurable, THEN RP is greater
than RC.

We can then say:

1. As stated, in a new tank with non existent, or immature
bacterial colonies, one would always have some ammonia
reading.
2. The size of the colonies eventually will be equal to the
amount of production.
3. If a water change is done, then the amount of waste
product is reduced and the amount of ammonia available as
food for the bacteria is reduced and while the bacteria
will continue to grow, they will adjust to the new,
lower, accumulation.
4. If one continues to reduce the accumulation by dilution,
then one is growing the colonies to a lower total
accumulation.
The overall result of this is that when adding fish, you
have to add small numbers of fish, or small size fish
to prevent the tank from "mini cycling." A "mini-cycle"
is the phrase describing the time when a cycled tank
is showing ammonia and/or nitrite readings as it allows
the bacterial colonies time to grow to be able to consume
the increased ammonia production.

The end result of "your" information is that the tank will
cycle, but it will cycle to a lower level of ammonia
production because in an effort to preserve the health
and safety of the fish cycling the tank, you keep diluting
the ammonia (the soup). That is why only really hardy
fish, fish than can "handle" that immersion in growing
ammonia or nitrite levels (for short periods) are
recommended.

Essentially, if you are going to use fish to cycle your
tank, then you should have in mind the end result.
In other words the bio load of the fish you are using to
cycle the tank, should approximate the bio load of the
fish that will eventually call the tank their home.

For instance if you cycle a 55 gallon tank with six
zebras, or a couple of swordtails, and after cycling
the tank, you give them back to the LFS and toss in
six, 3 inch Oscars, your tank is going to recycle to
the new, increased accumulation of waste. Thus exposing
your new, prized fish to increased ammonia and nitrite
readings until the RP=RC (0 ammonia or nitrite reading)
However, if you cycled the tank with the equivalent bio-
load of fish, then there would be little or no accumulation
of ammonia to read.

You and I both know that there is no such thing as a
"hardy fish" that can withstand the increased amounts
of ammonia and nitrite that are necessary to cycle a tank
without harm. A cycling tank can easily reach ammonia
readings of 6, and nitrite readings can reach 10, before
the bacteria colonies responsible for nitrate
reach maturity. A "hardy fish" is simply "Hogwash."
Although it is done day after day, mainly by LFS promotion.
In today's technology it is simply torture for a fish
and completely unnecessary.
Your notes on the affects of ammonia, and nitrite (my
addition) are absolutely on the mark and an outstanding
push to get folks to do fish-less cycling. If only more
would.

With fish-less cycling one adds enough ammonia to produce
a measurable amount of ammonia when testing. I have seen
ammonia readings of 6 to 8 recommended.
One maintains that reading by adding additional drops
of ammonia as required. Every day, you add ammonia to
maintain the desired ammonia reading.
You do this until the cycling process is completed..
That is, no measurable ammonia or nitrite readings
are obtained.
Only nitrate is measurable.
At that point, if you add ammonia, and it mixes in
the tank, and take a reading for ammonia, or
nitrite, you would get 0. At that point the tank is
cycled, and you should add fish, within 24 hours, or the
bacteria will begin to die off from lack of "food."


Frank



-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

OK,
Do I just go to the market and buy a no thrills Ammonia with nothing added (scent, dyes, etc.) Is there a certain brand that I should be looking for? How much/long and what range should I be looking for?
Thx,
Todd

3. If a water change is done, then the amount of waste
product is reduced and the amount of ammonia available as
food for the bacteria is reduced and while the bacteria
will continue to grow, they will adjust to the new,
lower, accumulation.
4. If one continues to reduce the accumulation by dilution,
then one is growing the colonies to a lower total
accumulation.

This is not right. The bacteria's rate of growth is NOT determined by the amount of accumulation. The bacteria's growth is really only an on/off switch. If there is ammonia present, the bacteria will grow, if there isn't then bacterial growth will stop or actually be negative (die off). The bacteria do not care whatsoever what the "snapshot" level of ammonia is, so long as some is present and not too high (as sham said).
The bacteria don't care what the level is, since they can only consume a certain amount a day. Look, if they can only eat 5 mL a day, the ammonia doesn't care if there is 5, 15, or 500 mL (assuming 500 is not at the toxic level). Each of those is greater or equal to 5, and so the bacteria for that day is happy.


Let me present some simple calculations:

First a tank without any waterchanges at all: I will assume that rp = 1 ppm per day. rc will start at 0.00001 ppm per day and will double every day, so long as some ammonia is present. Note it is not a function of the amount of ammonia.

Day rp rc ammonia
=== == == =======
1 1 0.00001 0.99999
2 1 0.00002 1.99997
3 1 0.00004 2.99993
4 1 0.00008 3.99985
5 1 0.00016 4.99969
6 1 0.00032 5.99937
7 1 0.00064 6.99873
8 1 0.00128 7.99745
9 1 0.00256 8.99489
10 1 0.00512 9.98977
11 1 0.01024 10.97953
12 1 0.02048 11.95905
13 1 0.04096 12.91809
14 1 0.08192 13.83617
15 1 0.16384 14.67233
16 1 0.32768 15.34465
17 1 0.65536 15.68929
18 1 1.31072 15.37857
19 1 2.62144 13.75713
20 1 5.24288 9.51425
21 1 10.48576 0.02849
22 1 20.97152 0.00000


Now, I'll repeat this same calculation, just at the end of each day a 10% water change is done:

Day rp rc ammonia
=== == == =======
1 1 0.00001 0.899991
2 1 0.00002 1.7099739
3 1 0.00004 2.43894051
4 1 0.00008 3.094974459
5 1 0.00016 3.685333013
6 1 0.00032 4.216511712
7 1 0.00064 4.694284541
8 1 0.00128 5.123704087
9 1 0.00256 5.509029678
10 1 0.00512 5.85351871
11 1 0.01024 6.158950839
12 1 0.02048 6.424623755
13 1 0.04096 6.64529738
14 1 0.08192 6.807039642
15 1 0.16384 6.878879678
16 1 0.32768 6.79607971
17 1 0.65536 6.426647739
18 1 1.31072 5.504334965
19 1 2.62144 3.494605468
20 1 5.24288 0.00000

Look at what happened. With the water changes, the tank got cycled 2 days faster, and, most importantly, the max level of ammonia was less than half of what happened without the water changes. 6.9 ppm compared to 15.7 ppm without waterchanges. And, the rate of bacterial consumption at the end of the waterchanged cycle was 5 times the rate of production. Over the next few days, the bacteria will die off until the colony's consumption is equal to 1, until rp=rc. But, at the end of that cycle, you can increase the fish load 5 times and no mini-cycle will occur. 5 times is a huge amount, and more than any of us would ever recommend. Sure, the end of the not-waterchanged had 20 times. However, in both, the colony is going to die off pretty quickly until rp=rc. There is no advantage if you let the colony die back, in both cases rc=1, the same net result occurs.

If you did 25% a day, the maximum ammonia reached is only 2.9 ppm. 50% a day, ammonia only reaches a maximum concnetration of 1.0 ppm. This is the best result... a completely cycled tank and the fish are not exposed to really bad levels of ammonia.

The exact same level of ammonia production and consumption, and the waterchanged tank cycled faster and with less than half the maximum concentration of ammonia. This is my point. Waterchanges not only protect the fish (again the research I cited indicates permanent damage from exposure), but speed up the cycling process.

I think some confusion comes from a difference in what water changes we're talking about. Doing constant water changes that keeps the ammonnia at zero and does not give the bacteria time to use the amount being produced each day will cause problems. The tank will not be finished cycling because you will remove more ammonia than the bacteria need to multiply.

However if you do water changes only when ammonia goes over a set amount, say 2ppm, then the bacteria will always have enough food to multiply as quickly as possible. Your water changes will also decrease as the tank cycles. If you test 3ppm, do a water change until it reaches 2, then tomorrow tests 2.5, do a water change, tests 2, and continue until the bacteria catch up. Eventually the water will test below 2 and you won't need to do a water change that day. The next day it may go above 2 and need a water change but the day after that it should be even lower so that it might take 2 days for the ammonia to reach 2 again. In the end you will be doing no water changes to lower ammonia and the bacteria will use the full amount of ammonia released in the water. It will not slow down the cycle because you never slowed the population increase of the bacteria. Water changes were never done to bring ammonia lower than the amount the bacteria can use in 24hours so they always had an abundance of food and could multiply as quickly as possible. The tank will be fully cycled to add the normal level of fish for a first stocking because you slowly backed off on water changes until the full amount of ammonia being produced was being used.

OK,
I've have this thing figured out, everybody has their own opinion and ways that they cycle their tanks.
I have Google this subject over & over again, and everybody does it different. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just as long as we all have the same results.
I continued to do what I've been doing (less the water changes), and my cycle is coming along nicely! I did find a few things out I didn't know, when cycling a fishless tank you have to RAISE the temp. of the tank to around 80 degrees, the Nitrites thrive at higher temps. And have also thrown in some flake food (very little).
Here's were the tank stands today:
pH: 7.0
Ammonia: 0
Nitrite: 4
Nitrate: 15
Everything seems to be heading in the right direction!
I again THANK YOU ALL!
Todd

Hi Todd,

I'm sorry that we seem to have hijacked this thread.
Along with 5+decades of experiance, I too have
"Googled" and have found in site after site
that you should NOT do water changes during the formation
of the Nitrogen Cycle - UNLESS - the fish show distress
from the levels of ammonia or nitrite. At that point
every site says to perform a water change, generally about
25% to relive the symptoms. However, also in each case,
they also say that water changes during the formation of
the cycle prolong the cycling process.

http://freshaquarium.about.com/cs/biologicalcycle/a/nitrogencycle_3.htm

http://www.aquaria.info/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=376&theme=Printer

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?cls=16&cat=1789&articleid=2657

http://www.aquariumadvice.com/article_view.php?faq=2&fldAuto=21

http://www.aquahobby.com/articles/e_ciclo.php

Frank


-->>> The Confidence of Amateurs, is the Envy of Professionals <<<--

Frank,

there may be many webpages that say one thing, but that does not make it so. It may be tradition, "everybody knows that..." but that does not make it so.

Let me give you a few examples off the top of my head.

There are many webpages that talk about ich's dormant phase. But ich does not have a dormant phase -- many research papers have been written about ich's life cycle and none have found a dormant phase.

For a long time, undergravel filters were the only way to go. But, eventually it was learned how other filters can do the work just as well or better.

In many books, even ones published today, the names of the ammonia oxidizing bacteria and the nitrite oxidizing bacteria are wrong. Someone listed the scientific names of them many years ago, taken from the names of the species found in wastewater facilities and assumed that they were the same ones as in the aquarium -- after all they were doing the exact same job, right? Wrong. Dr. Tim Hovanec in the late 1990's isolated the aquarium bacteria and found out that they were different species.

Just because a belief is long-held, does not make it right.

Can you challenge the logic of my assertion? Can you challenge the little simulation I did where I performed a small 10% water change to dilute the pollutants at the end of each day? I really feel that that speaks for itself -- the cycle occured just as fast, and the pollution levels were less than half of the undiluted tank. If that is not right, where did I make a mistake? I'd really like to know.