|
|
Post by Rainbowlightning on Dec 13, 2004 20:07:05 GMT -5
I can hardly believe it, but it's true!!!
After months and months of trying to cycle my 5g tank, I was honored today with these new params:
Nitrate: 40
Nitrite: 0
Ammonia: 0
etc etc etc...
I'm just soooo happy. I think I've been trying to cycle this tank for over two months now, LOL.
So I just wanted to share this great news with you all! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by marcusbacus on Dec 13, 2004 21:35:19 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for mine to be ready... well but it's been just 10 days...
Today I read the most stupid thing (IMHO) about cycling, sort of a "test proof" to see if your tank is cycled. Someone said in some forum "wait for the nitrites and ammonia to be 0 etc. etc. and then add 3ml of ammonia again, and if the ammonia and nitrites are 0 again in 2 days (!), you can add your fish safely"... I honestly doubt that it will "recycle" in 2 days. Even if it does, I don't see a point in double-checking a cycling by restarting it...
|
|
|
|
Post by amanichen on Dec 13, 2004 21:52:00 GMT -5
Today I read the most stupid thing (IMHO) about cycling, sort of a "test proof" to see if your tank is cycled. Someone said in some forum "wait for the nitrites and ammonia to be 0 etc. etc. and then add 3ml of ammonia again, and if the ammonia and nitrites are 0 again in 2 days (!), you can add your fish safely"... I honestly doubt that it will "recycle" in 2 days. Even if it does, I don't see a point in double-checking a cycling by restarting it... That may or may not be useful. It's very difficult to equate ammonia levels to suitability for fish. The nitrogen cycle is continuous, and the bacteria eventually reach an equilibrium with the chemicals that the fish produce, effectively making the ammonia and nitrite concentrations equal to zero. More accurately though, they are too small to be detected using most test methods. As for adding 3ml of ammonia...I'd ask the person to substantiate their claim with quantitive evidence that says why they make that recommendation. There are so many variables involved and that claim sounds like it worked in a specific situation. 3ml will obviously not work with all combinations of filters, tanks, and fish, so you can catch the person making a baseless recommendation by asking them to support it with scientific evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by marcusbacus on Dec 13, 2004 22:21:23 GMT -5
I added a small cap when I started my cycling, which is probably something not much more than these 3ml (I'm trying to visually guess here based on the test tubes of the test kits) and the levels went to 3ppm and took a week to go as low as 1.25. I definitely wouldn't risk it.
But this equilibrium state can be destroyed if there isn't some source of food for the bacteria after some time can't it? If you take some time to add fishes to a tank that has been fishless cycled, I am still not sure if there could be a reduced number of bacteria (as they didn't have food for a while) when you finally add the fishes, but I think that the dead leaves etc. can produce enough ammonia to make things going.
|
|
|
|
Post by amanichen on Dec 13, 2004 22:37:07 GMT -5
I added a small cap when I started my cycling, which is probably something not much more than these 3ml (I'm trying to visually guess here based on the test tubes of the test kits) and the levels went to 3ppm and took a week to go as low as 1.25. I definitely wouldn't risk it. As I said this 3ml thing sounds like an arbitrary value. I'd go and ask the person how they determined it, and if there's no scientific method behind it, then it's worthless. I'm not railing on you, but rather the person who made a seemingly baseless assertion. You could do experiments that correlate initial ammonia concentration (assuming a single high dose made for a fishless cycle) to an approximate number and type of fish suitable to put in when the cycle is established. There will always be some die-off with fishless cycling and fish-incorporated cycling. The advantage of fishless cycling is you can grow a ridiculous amount of bacteria, and then when the die-off comes, you'll still have a relatively large colony to support the fish with. Organic matter in a tank just doesn't turn into ammonia on its own...it's eaten by heterotrophic bacteria who produce ammonia. For reasons I've mentioned before (mainly fin rot, ulcers, and fungal attacks) it's not good to have too much decaying organic matter in a tank. I'd imagine that it's enough to temporarily tide-over the nitrifying bacteria. Again, if you establish a huge colony, you'll still be left with enough for your fish when it comes time to add them. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainbowlightning on Dec 14, 2004 5:55:01 GMT -5
I had also read something that 'recommended' (once the nitrite and ammonia were 0) to still add a little bit more ammonia for 2 days and see if everything stays the same before adding the fish.
My question is, how can we possibly know how much bacteria we've colonized? And how soon is it safe to put the fish in?
In my case I've been adding only 2 drops (ish) of ammonia every other day and I'll only be having my Betta in the tank.
|
|
|
|
Post by amanichen on Dec 14, 2004 9:22:20 GMT -5
Do you have a link to this? I'd like to take a look at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcusbacus on Dec 14, 2004 10:41:40 GMT -5
As I said this 3ml thing sounds like an arbitrary value. I'd go and ask the person how they determined it, and if there's no scientific method behind it, then it's worthless. I'm not railing on you, but rather the person who made a seemingly baseless assertion. I know, I am just trying to guess how much ammonia this 3ml can be in terms of "visual" volume compared to what I've added - which was already a lot I think since the levels skyrocketed to 3ppm. The whole bottle has 30ml (I have to check that again but it's probably not more than 50ml) and the cap I added was much less than 10% of the bottle (less than 5% actually). Adding these 3ml will make it go at least to 1.5ppm I think, at least if I use this same ammonia with this concentration. Definitely wouldnt worth the risk, as you said, if I have enough bacteria left that don't need to be feed so quickly. I'd rather add something like a bit of Cycle than adding more ammonia. |
|
|
|
Post by amanichen on Dec 14, 2004 10:46:07 GMT -5
I know, I am just trying to guess how much ammonia this 3ml can be in terms of "visual" volume compared to what I've added Your comparison only works if both you, and the "3ml" person used the same % ammonia solution. |
|
|
|
Post by Jenova on Dec 14, 2004 17:08:24 GMT -5
Glad to hear that you tank is finally cycled  Today I read the most stupid thing (IMHO) about cycling, sort of a "test proof" to see if your tank is cycled. Someone said in some forum "wait for the nitrites and ammonia to be 0 etc. etc. and then add 3ml of ammonia again, and if the ammonia and nitrites are 0 again in 2 days (!), you can add your fish safely"... I honestly doubt that it will "recycle" in 2 days. Even if it does, I don't see a point in double-checking a cycling by restarting it... If the ammonia was dillute, I guess it would work ok... kind of hard to say without knowing the concentration though..... If you just add some ammonia to begin with and then nothing later on, I guess the bacteria colony could die out. Bacteria are often pretty though, but I don't know how long these particular ones last without food. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainbowlightning on Dec 14, 2004 17:42:33 GMT -5
Ok, I think I may have spoken too soon. Last night I did a 50% water change and added some tap water, and again just 1 drop of ammonia. When testing my params again today, my ammonia was back down to 0; Nitrates were about 30 and my nitrites were only just detectable, so say .5. Is this normal, once they've reached 0 for them to raise a bit again? I kinda hoped that once they hit 0 they'd stay that way  No, I don't...I read it a while back when I was reading up on fishless cycling. I had written a few recommendations down, like keeping PH stable, keeping temp up, adding small amounts of ammonia, and once cycled continue to add small amounts of ammonia. But once I was unable to find that link again, I started going by what this page said: badmanstropicalfish.com/articles/article14.htmlThis page recommends to spike the ammonia a few times to help the bioload grow  So maybe I should hold off with moving Lucky until I know it's stable and safe |
|
|
|
Post by marcusbacus on Dec 14, 2004 18:07:44 GMT -5
I read this same text but in some other site, and I read it before I started my cycle I think, as I was reading some other tips that told me to do exactly the opposite, to start with a high ammonia dose (I even asked about this somewhere here) in a single stronger spike, which is what I did. As it says in the text: "Now you know what to use, so here is my "recipe". This is the general guideline that I use, and works for me." "Works for me" is very abrangent. Works, but how and most important, where (in which environment) it worked? I read stories about people adding a bit of Java moss to tanks and it zeroed the ammonia "immediately". I also read stories about people not using filters at all in relatively big tanks, and only using plants to keep their levels safe. If you have patience to wait a few more days, you could try these new spikes, but I really don't see how it could help. If I want to add a new ammonia spike, at least I would like to do it with new fishes  |
|
|
|
Post by amanichen on Dec 14, 2004 18:18:00 GMT -5
This page recommends to spike the ammonia a few times to help the bioload grow Spreading it out is actually the best way to do it. One large dose of ammonia will mean more die-off in the end. Note that this is quite different than "checking" using "3ml" of an ammonium hydroxide solution that has an unspecified concentration. The best method would be an initial high dose of ammonia, followed by a few smaller doses of ammonia to keep the nitrosomas* bacteria going while the nitrobacters* catch up. *Note: there's been some research done by Marineland that suggests that these are not actually the bacteria responsible for the ammonia ---> nitrite --->nitrate conversion. Since I have not seen any real confirmation from outside sources on this, I will keep with the current status quo. How many fish are going in how much water? |
|
|
|
Post by marcusbacus on Dec 15, 2004 10:41:05 GMT -5
Mine seems cycled too. Nitrite went to 0.6 today, and I did a water change (20%) so it might have reduced now. pH seems to have reduced with the new water, but I'm not sure if it will last.
I did a test today with the ammonia I used, the amount in a cap is 4ml, and it's 10%, so this person probably used a less concentrated kind or was just lucky.
I'm planning to add 3 corys, a ramirezi couple and a Neritina zebra snail. I was going to add some rodostomus but I think I shouldnt... not now at least. As my pH isnt stabilized, I'm not sure if tetras could be confortable. In the near future, I'll probably be adding a betta female trio or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rainbowlightning on Dec 15, 2004 16:24:17 GMT -5
I will be putting JUST my betta in. It's a 5g tank, but I think there's only about 4 maybe 4.5g of water. These are my parameters (today's): nitrate: 30 nitrite: .5 hardness: 75 alkalinity: 120 ph: 7.0 Should I respike my tank again? Any ideas why the nitrite are back to .5? I feel that with that .5 appearing that it would still be unsafe to put him in.... right? |
|
