jonclark96
Past CCA President
You won't start the cycle until you put something in the tank to produce ammonia. Personally, I wouldn't want to have the tank sitting there stagnant, but there probably isn't any harm to it if there aren't any fish in it.
mchambers
Former CCA member
You might want to read an article or two about cycling a tank. There are many good ones on the Internet.
The rocks and gravel might have some beneficial bacteria, if they've been kept wet, but it's an iffy proposition. You're better off going through a new cycling, or getting some filter media from an existing tank, if you know someone who could give that to you.
The rocks and gravel might have some beneficial bacteria, if they've been kept wet, but it's an iffy proposition. You're better off going through a new cycling, or getting some filter media from an existing tank, if you know someone who could give that to you.
jonclark96
Past CCA President
There won't be any ammonia on the rocks, but if they stayed wet, there may be some of the beneficial bacteria assuming the tank was in use before you got it.
I have found the best way to "cycle" a tank is to pull an established filter off of an existing tank. This way you have an instantly cycled tank. If this isn't an option, see if you can get some filter media from a friend/LFS to help start things off. Otherwise, there are ways to either cycle the tank with resilient fish and lots of water changes or by adding ammonia (google can help).
I have found the best way to "cycle" a tank is to pull an established filter off of an existing tank. This way you have an instantly cycled tank. If this isn't an option, see if you can get some filter media from a friend/LFS to help start things off. Otherwise, there are ways to either cycle the tank with resilient fish and lots of water changes or by adding ammonia (google can help).
Avatar
Plenipotentiary-at-large
No time like the present
Do it now. Dump a gallon of water in from your other tank, a few plant bits, driftwood, anything at all really - it's like the inside of your mouth in that every surface is covered with bacteria. Will be plenty of dissolved oxygen in there from the initial fill-up and not nearly enough time or waste for stagnation to be an issue.
"Cycling" is not a mystery nor does it require weeks. It's not even real - all you're really doing is establishing ample bacterial populations to carry out denitrification. My tanks almost always get fish in them the same day they get filled, and anymore I keep a few foam filters soaking in a tank somewhere to ensure there are a couple ready as needed. Better still is to stack them on intake/uplift tubes as primary or pre-filters.
Do it now. Dump a gallon of water in from your other tank, a few plant bits, driftwood, anything at all really - it's like the inside of your mouth in that every surface is covered with bacteria. Will be plenty of dissolved oxygen in there from the initial fill-up and not nearly enough time or waste for stagnation to be an issue.
"Cycling" is not a mystery nor does it require weeks. It's not even real - all you're really doing is establishing ample bacterial populations to carry out denitrification. My tanks almost always get fish in them the same day they get filled, and anymore I keep a few foam filters soaking in a tank somewhere to ensure there are a couple ready as needed. Better still is to stack them on intake/uplift tubes as primary or pre-filters.
dogofwar
CCA Members
Amen.
You can never have to many extra sponge filters bubbling in your tanks. Extra box filters (half filled with gravel, of course) too.
Matt
You can never have to many extra sponge filters bubbling in your tanks. Extra box filters (half filled with gravel, of course) too.
Matt
Assuming the rocks/gravel have not already dried out I would try to keep them wet, no reason to fill the tank for that. There is no cycling until you have a filter and water movement in the tank. without water movement there is no/little oxygen in the bottom of the tank which the bacteria need just as much as the fish (well the bacteria probably don't need it to survive, just to eat - they appear to be complicated creatures).
Personally, I wouldn't trust just putting in a few bits of filter media, rocks, etc to fully "cycle" the tank. On our new 110s into which we put relatively expensive fish (30 tropheus in one, 3 grown out colonies of gender balanced Mbuna in the other) we decided not to take any risks. We had all new rocks and sand so no bacteria there. We put a fair amount of used filter media in the sumps and added some Dr Tims bacteria. Even so each tank had a short but very noticeable cycle of Ammonia spike, Nitrite Spike and then good parameters. Our preference was to make sure each tank had a strong bacteria colony before throwing fish in. OTOH, when we did our very first tank (and you can see the records in the blog in my sig) we threw Mbuna in (some of the same ones in the Mbuna 110 now) without cycling and they seemed to have done fine.... But I wouldn't want to risk this with what I know now on 30 trophs imported from Germany...so we waited and tested the water at least once a day and often twice with near daily water changes to try to keep the NH3 and NO2 levels at what we believe are the optimal ones for growing bacteria as well as cranking up the temp into the low 80s to encourage the little buggers.
OTOH, we often throw together a 10g fry tank with dry gravel, tank water and a maybe seeded/maybe not seeded sponge filter. We plan to change the water pretty regularly and even large numbers of tiny fry aren't much of a bioload.
Personally, I wouldn't trust just putting in a few bits of filter media, rocks, etc to fully "cycle" the tank. On our new 110s into which we put relatively expensive fish (30 tropheus in one, 3 grown out colonies of gender balanced Mbuna in the other) we decided not to take any risks. We had all new rocks and sand so no bacteria there. We put a fair amount of used filter media in the sumps and added some Dr Tims bacteria. Even so each tank had a short but very noticeable cycle of Ammonia spike, Nitrite Spike and then good parameters. Our preference was to make sure each tank had a strong bacteria colony before throwing fish in. OTOH, when we did our very first tank (and you can see the records in the blog in my sig) we threw Mbuna in (some of the same ones in the Mbuna 110 now) without cycling and they seemed to have done fine.... But I wouldn't want to risk this with what I know now on 30 trophs imported from Germany...so we waited and tested the water at least once a day and often twice with near daily water changes to try to keep the NH3 and NO2 levels at what we believe are the optimal ones for growing bacteria as well as cranking up the temp into the low 80s to encourage the little buggers.
OTOH, we often throw together a 10g fry tank with dry gravel, tank water and a maybe seeded/maybe not seeded sponge filter. We plan to change the water pretty regularly and even large numbers of tiny fry aren't much of a bioload.
Avatar
Plenipotentiary-at-large
Enough with the rocket science
There is no tank cycling. Simply doesn't exist. Establishing a nitrogen cycle does. Forget the tank, it's all about bacteria. Plenty of dissolved O2 in new water at all levels, and organics (and beneficial bacteria) are in/on anything pulled from an established tank. Bacteria never sleep, and they are able to move all by themselves without circulation, so the sooner they're introduced into a tank, the sooner they begin to multiply and colonize. Not complicated at all.
Never said anything about fully and immediately establishing a nitrogen cycle in a tank from a "few bits", but there's no downside to beginning and zero benefit to waiting. Additionally if one introduces enough fast growing plants they can process the nitrogen (leave the lights on) and allow the bacteria time to adequately establish.
As for buying bacteria, whatever, it's your money, but neither Dr. Tim nor anyone else can sell one anything useful for establishing a nitrogen cycle that isn't already in existing tanks simply awaiting the opportunity to go forth and multiply.
In three years with 30 tanks I have tested my water for ammonia, hardness and nitrates exactly once to determine starting parameters in the tap water and never since. Knock yourself out, but other than monitoring pH for spawning purposes, water testing seems like a waste of time if in fact filtration is good and water changes/tank maintenance are regular/sufficient. At this point I wouldn't hesitate to set up a new tank and move my discus, wild angels or anything else into it the same day. Fact is, I do as such all the time.
Apologies if this sounds aggressive, am simply very weary of reading about staring a tank as if it's something mysterious and fraught with peril that additionally requires the use of esoteric additives and preferably a degree in organic chemistry. It's easy to kill fish, but it's just as easy to keep them alive and thriving, new tank or not..
There is no tank cycling. Simply doesn't exist. Establishing a nitrogen cycle does. Forget the tank, it's all about bacteria. Plenty of dissolved O2 in new water at all levels, and organics (and beneficial bacteria) are in/on anything pulled from an established tank. Bacteria never sleep, and they are able to move all by themselves without circulation, so the sooner they're introduced into a tank, the sooner they begin to multiply and colonize. Not complicated at all.
Never said anything about fully and immediately establishing a nitrogen cycle in a tank from a "few bits", but there's no downside to beginning and zero benefit to waiting. Additionally if one introduces enough fast growing plants they can process the nitrogen (leave the lights on) and allow the bacteria time to adequately establish.
As for buying bacteria, whatever, it's your money, but neither Dr. Tim nor anyone else can sell one anything useful for establishing a nitrogen cycle that isn't already in existing tanks simply awaiting the opportunity to go forth and multiply.
In three years with 30 tanks I have tested my water for ammonia, hardness and nitrates exactly once to determine starting parameters in the tap water and never since. Knock yourself out, but other than monitoring pH for spawning purposes, water testing seems like a waste of time if in fact filtration is good and water changes/tank maintenance are regular/sufficient. At this point I wouldn't hesitate to set up a new tank and move my discus, wild angels or anything else into it the same day. Fact is, I do as such all the time.
Apologies if this sounds aggressive, am simply very weary of reading about staring a tank as if it's something mysterious and fraught with peril that additionally requires the use of esoteric additives and preferably a degree in organic chemistry. It's easy to kill fish, but it's just as easy to keep them alive and thriving, new tank or not..
Most people call this cycling, I do notice that your preferred term includes the word "cycle"... I also think you are smart enough to realize that most well read and knowledgeable hobbyists know that (cycling/establishing a nitrogen cycle) is all about the bacteria but let's agree that it is the same thing and not get hung up language.
I point you at
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/fishless_cycle.php
I would note that this article (like many many others) notes that cycling is all about the bacteria...
Maybe someone else somewhere is using the term differently, but I am not aware of it. Every web reference I find on "cycling an aquarium" basically is a discussion of bacteria.
Never said anything about fully and immediately establishing a nitrogen cycle in a tank from a "few bits", but there's no downside to beginning and zero benefit to waiting. Additionally if one introduces enough fast growing plants they can process the nitrogen (leave the lights on) and allow the bacteria time to adequately establish.
There is a difference between testing a new tank and an existing one. YOUR experience may be what it is, my experience which has involved testing my new tanks that were filled with all sorts of things that provided nitrifying bacteris tells me that even when you do this you get a significant spike of NH3 and NO2 when starting out, significant meaning both go about 5ppm and probably more in the 8-10ppm range. I choose not to expose my fish to that. T
he fish may well be fine and survive it, it probably wouldn't last that long but I don't like to risk it. As I said with my first tank there was exactly this spike it lasted for a couple of weeks and the fish don't seem any the the worse for it. Since you never test your aquariums can you really be sure you don't experience that spike?
You can read our blog for the NH3 and NO2 readings or decide we just made them up. We added probably 2 cups worth of eheim filter material from established filters into each tank plus Dr Tims and still got a signficant spike or we could just be making it up.
Avatar
Plenipotentiary-at-large
Not seeing any mis-statements
Most people call this cycling, I do notice that your preferred term includes the word "cycle"... I also think you are smart enough to realize that most well read and knowledgeable hobbyists know that (cycling/establishing a nitrogen cycle) is all about the bacteria but let's agree that it is the same thing and not get hung up language.
From reading this board I can assure you that a great many people do not understand the difference or realize that one even exists. The fact that so many begin with an inherent misapprehension of the goal is precisely why I reject the term and am "hung up" on the language. At the point that perspective begins to shape reality, it ceases to be merely semantics (as in all faith-based realities).
I point you at
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/fishless_cycle.php
I would note that this article (like many many others) notes that cycling is all about the bacteria...
Not sure what your point is since this is exactly what I said, but with far fewer words.
Maybe someone else somewhere is using the term differently, but I am not aware of it. Every web reference I find on "cycling an aquarium" basically is a discussion of bacteria.
Any number of previous threads on this board will reveal the degree to which term this engenders confusion among hobbyists, which beggars the question: Why use an expression that is a misnomer and needlessly confuses a great number of people, and especially aspiring hobbyists and relative neophytes whose future involvement in the hobby may well be predicated on first experiences?
[/SIZE][/FONT]
There is a difference between testing a new tank and an existing one. YOUR experience may be what it is, my experience which has involved testing my new tanks that were filled with all sorts of things that provided nitrifying bacteris tells me that even when you do this you get a significant spike of NH3 and NO2 when starting out, significant meaning both go about 5ppm and probably more in the 8-10ppm range. I choose not to expose my fish to that. T
The fish may well be fine and survive it, it probably wouldn't last that long but I don't like to risk it. As I said with my first tank there was exactly this spike it lasted for a couple of weeks and the fish don't seem any the the worse for it. Since you never test your aquariums can you really be sure you don't experience that spike?
I don't experience anything of the kind, and while my tanks might, as I used pre-colonized sponge filters and lots of plants I really doubt it and would consider any semblance of such to be entirely negligible.
You can read our blog for the NH3 and NO2 readings or decide we just made them up. We added probably 2 cups worth of eheim filter material from established filters into each tank plus Dr Tims and still got a signficant spike or we could just be making it up.
I'm sure your readings are precise and empirical. I'd surmise that your readings are more a function of the limited surface area of the media than any inherent personal predilection for promoting fiction. I really have no idea as I don't have a blog and am merely a lowly biologist.
Most people call this cycling, I do notice that your preferred term includes the word "cycle"... I also think you are smart enough to realize that most well read and knowledgeable hobbyists know that (cycling/establishing a nitrogen cycle) is all about the bacteria but let's agree that it is the same thing and not get hung up language.
From reading this board I can assure you that a great many people do not understand the difference or realize that one even exists. The fact that so many begin with an inherent misapprehension of the goal is precisely why I reject the term and am "hung up" on the language. At the point that perspective begins to shape reality, it ceases to be merely semantics (as in all faith-based realities).
I point you at
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/fishless_cycle.php
I would note that this article (like many many others) notes that cycling is all about the bacteria...
Not sure what your point is since this is exactly what I said, but with far fewer words.
Maybe someone else somewhere is using the term differently, but I am not aware of it. Every web reference I find on "cycling an aquarium" basically is a discussion of bacteria.
Any number of previous threads on this board will reveal the degree to which term this engenders confusion among hobbyists, which beggars the question: Why use an expression that is a misnomer and needlessly confuses a great number of people, and especially aspiring hobbyists and relative neophytes whose future involvement in the hobby may well be predicated on first experiences?
[/SIZE][/FONT]
There is a difference between testing a new tank and an existing one. YOUR experience may be what it is, my experience which has involved testing my new tanks that were filled with all sorts of things that provided nitrifying bacteris tells me that even when you do this you get a significant spike of NH3 and NO2 when starting out, significant meaning both go about 5ppm and probably more in the 8-10ppm range. I choose not to expose my fish to that. T
The fish may well be fine and survive it, it probably wouldn't last that long but I don't like to risk it. As I said with my first tank there was exactly this spike it lasted for a couple of weeks and the fish don't seem any the the worse for it. Since you never test your aquariums can you really be sure you don't experience that spike?
I don't experience anything of the kind, and while my tanks might, as I used pre-colonized sponge filters and lots of plants I really doubt it and would consider any semblance of such to be entirely negligible.
You can read our blog for the NH3 and NO2 readings or decide we just made them up. We added probably 2 cups worth of eheim filter material from established filters into each tank plus Dr Tims and still got a signficant spike or we could just be making it up.
I'm sure your readings are precise and empirical. I'd surmise that your readings are more a function of the limited surface area of the media than any inherent personal predilection for promoting fiction. I really have no idea as I don't have a blog and am merely a lowly biologist.
Poor Courage, this is what you get for asking for advice on the interwebz!
Here's what I'd boil our experience down to most simply:
It's better, on average, to put fish into a tank with no ammonia or nitrite, than it is to put them in a tank that does have ammonia and/or nitrite.
For sensitive fish, this may really matter. For sensitive fish owners, it may just make us feel better.
For the hobby to be fun, my fish and I both should be happy, and for me that means not biting my nails worrying that my water is hurting my fish. I try to generally be clear in my posts that I am particularly risk averse so there is not confusion between the two factors.
Figuring out how we get a tank to have no ammonia or nitrite has a number of approaches. To be perfectly frank, I'd say I'm disappointed with the performance of Dr. Tim's. While it doesn't pretend to be an instant cure, the time it has taken us to go from ammonia to 0 ammonia / 0 nitrite has been significant in all cases and I am not sure whether the marginal improvement if any is worth a purchase. If I were ever setting up side by side tanks again, I'd experiment. That is (hopefully) unlikely in the near term. The jury is out on this one, in my mind.
All I can speak to is personal experience, which is that the addition of seasoned media has not been sufficient to eliminate ammonia/nitrite in a short window. And what I see many times is the advice is, "eh, squeeze a sponge filter in there, you're good to go." Whereas there are some anal retentive, risk averse hobbyists like me that will be clinging to their test kits and worrying about their fish and not having fun.
Side note, too, while water changes are a panacea for many, many things, the fact that we have chloramine in our water most of the year, which as I understand gets nicely broken down (probably the wrong term, I am emphatically a very poor scientist) to ammonia which gets converted to more nitrite. Are water changes therefore just hurting my cycle? I'll confess to not knowing how this works.
I think the OP's basic questions have nevertheless been answered.
Ultimately, I'm here to exchange ideas, not to bicker; to enjoy keeping fish and to be part of a community that supports that. The blog is what happened when I got tired of chasing multiple fish log notebooks all over the house. Yes, I like to track stuff. It suits my orderly side and has occasionally even proved helpful. It's nice to be able to look back at timely notes on what happened, rather than a recollection of what happened. To me, this is just another stylistic element; we all have different ones, and it seems like the most important thing is seeing past that to offer up multiple perspectives that suit multiple styles.
Here's what I'd boil our experience down to most simply:
It's better, on average, to put fish into a tank with no ammonia or nitrite, than it is to put them in a tank that does have ammonia and/or nitrite.
For sensitive fish, this may really matter. For sensitive fish owners, it may just make us feel better.
For the hobby to be fun, my fish and I both should be happy, and for me that means not biting my nails worrying that my water is hurting my fish. I try to generally be clear in my posts that I am particularly risk averse so there is not confusion between the two factors.
Figuring out how we get a tank to have no ammonia or nitrite has a number of approaches. To be perfectly frank, I'd say I'm disappointed with the performance of Dr. Tim's. While it doesn't pretend to be an instant cure, the time it has taken us to go from ammonia to 0 ammonia / 0 nitrite has been significant in all cases and I am not sure whether the marginal improvement if any is worth a purchase. If I were ever setting up side by side tanks again, I'd experiment. That is (hopefully) unlikely in the near term. The jury is out on this one, in my mind.
All I can speak to is personal experience, which is that the addition of seasoned media has not been sufficient to eliminate ammonia/nitrite in a short window. And what I see many times is the advice is, "eh, squeeze a sponge filter in there, you're good to go." Whereas there are some anal retentive, risk averse hobbyists like me that will be clinging to their test kits and worrying about their fish and not having fun.
Side note, too, while water changes are a panacea for many, many things, the fact that we have chloramine in our water most of the year, which as I understand gets nicely broken down (probably the wrong term, I am emphatically a very poor scientist) to ammonia which gets converted to more nitrite. Are water changes therefore just hurting my cycle? I'll confess to not knowing how this works.
I think the OP's basic questions have nevertheless been answered.
Ultimately, I'm here to exchange ideas, not to bicker; to enjoy keeping fish and to be part of a community that supports that. The blog is what happened when I got tired of chasing multiple fish log notebooks all over the house. Yes, I like to track stuff. It suits my orderly side and has occasionally even proved helpful. It's nice to be able to look back at timely notes on what happened, rather than a recollection of what happened. To me, this is just another stylistic element; we all have different ones, and it seems like the most important thing is seeing past that to offer up multiple perspectives that suit multiple styles.
Avatar
Plenipotentiary-at-large
Just learned today...
...that DC runs chloramine for most of the year save for about ten days every Spring when it flushes the system with chlorine.
Once the chlorine bond is broken the ammonia gets broken down per normal, unless you're treating with better de-chlor products like Prime or Amquel that additionally deal with the resulting "free" ammonia by binding it with a fourth hydrogen ion to produce ammonium (harmless) that is also broken down like ammonia by bacteria. It's possible to still get ammonia readings even if there isn't any if your test is also reading for ammonium which apparently many do. RO units that are set up to do chloramine removal typically reduce ammonia to negligible levels (<0.1ppm) and all of them generally reduce chlorine to less than 0.01ppm.
Just for the record, I've never seen anyone suggest "squeeze a sponge filter in there, you're good to go". Would work given enough time (and probably is as effective as store-bought additives), but that's a lot different than moving an established filter into a tank and dropping fish in right behind it.
Am also not here to "bicker", just believe the truth is much simpler than it's often made out to be.
...that DC runs chloramine for most of the year save for about ten days every Spring when it flushes the system with chlorine.
Once the chlorine bond is broken the ammonia gets broken down per normal, unless you're treating with better de-chlor products like Prime or Amquel that additionally deal with the resulting "free" ammonia by binding it with a fourth hydrogen ion to produce ammonium (harmless) that is also broken down like ammonia by bacteria. It's possible to still get ammonia readings even if there isn't any if your test is also reading for ammonium which apparently many do. RO units that are set up to do chloramine removal typically reduce ammonia to negligible levels (<0.1ppm) and all of them generally reduce chlorine to less than 0.01ppm.
Just for the record, I've never seen anyone suggest "squeeze a sponge filter in there, you're good to go". Would work given enough time (and probably is as effective as store-bought additives), but that's a lot different than moving an established filter into a tank and dropping fish in right behind it.
Am also not here to "bicker", just believe the truth is much simpler than it's often made out to be.
londonloco
Members
Year ago I found this thread:
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...aily-perams-pics)&highlight=Seachem+Stability
I was skeptical, having lived thru the "instant bacteria" products of the 90's, decided to try it anyway. **** works . I've used it many times this past year starting new tanks, redoing old tanks including substrate changes, with old media, some with new media, never lost a fish using it. Big box stores carry it, 10$ a bottle, def worth it. Just follow the directions to the T, shake the bottle before using, and use the correct amounts for the specified time. It's become a staple in my fish room.
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/f...aily-perams-pics)&highlight=Seachem+Stability
I was skeptical, having lived thru the "instant bacteria" products of the 90's, decided to try it anyway. **** works . I've used it many times this past year starting new tanks, redoing old tanks including substrate changes, with old media, some with new media, never lost a fish using it. Big box stores carry it, 10$ a bottle, def worth it. Just follow the directions to the T, shake the bottle before using, and use the correct amounts for the specified time. It's become a staple in my fish room.
