CYCLING OPTIONS!!

[7Enigma]

I didn't pull the week to ten days out of my hat. It's pulled from my experience. It's related to the parameters I use to cycle. Change the parameters - change the time - change what your experience will be.
From my vantage point, fishless cycling isn't the answer. In fact, it's a completely unnecessary waste of time that lasts for weeks.

Yes, there is a superior aspect to fish cycling. We get to enjoy our aquatic life without wasting weeks dosing ammonia and performing water tests on an empty tank.

Have you ever done a fishless cycle? My educated guess says no. You are trying to paint a fish cycle like its just over in a week, and that a fishless cycle takes multiple weeks. Again I feel you are just randomly guessing at numbers. Or just misinformation on the part of fishless cycling.

So here's some numbers for you (and I will not say this is average, or short, because it depends on each individual's tank and circumstances):

-I fishless cycled my tank in 17 days (want proof, check the huge thread in the Getting Started forum). This was done with a handful of gravel from a friends tank. No filter media, no special additives or Biospira, and with very limited knowledge of things that could speed up the cycle. I ignored the tank for the first couple days. After that I checked the nitrIte levels once every day or 2. 5 minutes for the test. Again no water changes. Once I saw a blip of nitrIte I went back to checking ammonia levels once a day. 5 minutes. When it went below 1ppm I added another couple drops and sat back and relaxed again. In a short period of time I was done. Oh, and ready to completely stock my tank (I did it over a period of 3 days just to be safe, as much from the stress of trying to move all these fish as my own fear that I hadn't prepared the tank enough). I went from an empty tank (no plants) to 6 tiger barbs, 7 cherry-gold checkered barbs, 3 Oto's, and 3 cory's......in 3 days. No crazy water changes because I overstocked (this was a 20 gallon tank), no more monitoring other than the occasional ammonia check to make sure some problem didn't arise, just happy fish that were transplanted into a perfectly safe tank.

During those 17 days I did ONE PWC to bring the nitrItes down to a readable range, and then a 90% PWC before adding in the fish to remove the nitrAtes. It cost me $1 for the ammonia.

 

[Jchillin]

The discussions in this topic are excellent. Let's keep the discussion focused on the matter at hand and not use this thread as a personal soap box.

 

[ezy33]

The last time I started a new tank, 18 years ago, I used 100 ($10.00) feeder guppies in a 180 GAL. I think I lost 8 ($0.80) in the first week. All without any test kit. A month later I added 4 Green Severums, a Managuense and a Jardini Arowana as babies. Then the Guppies started disappearing. Go figure.

I have observed that most posts about new systems start out "go but a test kit". IMO this is Madness. Unless you run a LFS!

 

[Madness]

As I mentioned:

"Daily water changes are a product of fish cycling. But when it's done as I recommend they last only for a week to ten days.

It is the daily water change portion of the cycle that lasts a week to ten days. It takes about three or four weeks for nitrite to become measurable during which time only regular water changes are performed as the combination of stock and plants prevent ammonia from ever becoming measurable. I still test for ammonia just to be sure, but the method has always been rock solid for me.

 

[fish 'n' fries]

I have to say, I'm another old schooler and have to agree with the recent posts. I never had a test kit until this board made a big deal about my not testing...and I haven't used it since. I never lost fish from cycling. I still have the corys and pleco from the beginning and the corys even spawn. The difference in my mind is actually slowly stocking (plus I believe in plants) as opposed to the newbie mistake of fully stocking a tank on day one. That is not cycling. I've yet to see any data supporting fishless cycling--just opinion that it's better. I belive it is a viable option but still only one option.

 

[Jchillin]

I'm not a scientist but the nitrogen cycle is what it is. There is no way to dispute this. It takes time for the colonies of bacteria to establish themselves.

If you use plants to "cycle" your tank, it cannot be "cycled" in a weeks time. The plants are simply using the waste products before they exceed noxious levels. This method is known as the "silent cycle", which is recommended if the user is interested in using it.

True, back in the old days, no one utilized test kits or even performed weekly water changes. You filled the tank up with aged water, introduced fish and let it be. If you stocked too quickly, fish died, you replaced them and so on.

What is being stressed is a more economical and less stressful method of cycling a tank. Fishless using pure ammonia is relatively cheap and doesn't harm or stress out your fish. Slow cycling with fish and performing frequent water changes and testing your water is just another recommendation to try and keep the fish that have been purchased.

The role of providing advice is to provide the best advice available. Do people use shortcuts and have success? Naturally this is true since not every tank and every person is doing the exact same thing.

As the OP stated in the beginning of this thread, they did not wish to create a war, just open the discussion to the varying methodology regarding cycling a tank. It is up to the individual to decide from the choices given which method to use.

To say that when members who advise fishless or test kits is madness is being irresponsible.

 

[LandGhoti]

Fishless using pure ammonia is relatively cheap and doesn't harm or stress out your fish.

So is using uncooked shrimp.

The role of providing advice is to provide the best advice available. Do people use shortcuts and have success? Naturally this is true since not every tank and every person is doing the exact same thing.

As the OP stated in the beginning of this thread, they did not wish to create a war, just open the discussion to the varying methodology regarding cycling a tank. It is up to the individual to decide from the choices given which method to use.

To say that when members who advise fishless or test kits is madness is being irresponsible.

Totally agreed. When I first came to this forum, I didn't even KNOW about ammonia, nitrites, or nitrates. I was doing what I'd done with the tanks I had in my teens: add fish and let them be (and I never lost any). Once I started reading up on the nitrogen cycle here, I got myself a test kit and started testing right away. Obviously I had to do huge daily PWCs for almost two months (I didn't have real plants). I did lose some fish. I didn't have a problem doing this--in fact it made me an expert at starting the siphon --but because I was brand new and didn't know about the benefit of plants, etc, I did it that way. After I lost all my fish in a power outage in December, I re-cycled my tank with two raw shrimp and my old filter media and added plants a bit later, so my second cycle lasted about 3 weeks. It's just a matter of what you know and when you know it. It's great that you (OP) are asking about other options to fishless cycling--it is a good thing to know about all the ways of doing it. But I do think it is VERY helpful to get a test kit so you know exactly what is happening with your water, whether it's during the cycle or sometime in the future.

 

[spittinfly]

Wow. Thank you all for all the great opinions and areas of expertise. I know this thread has helped me and I hope it will help others as well. Once I figure out my way maybe I will post my experience here also.

 

[7Enigma]

I've yet to see any data supporting fishless cycling--just opinion that it's better. I belive it is a viable option but still only one option.

What data do you want to see? I've heard this exact comment several times on here by different people and it amazes me every time. Every single fishless cycling post on this site is anecdotal data. To take one is irresponsible as the sample size is too small and you could have an anomaly that does not accurately show a trend.

But to disregard all of these FC posts as an opinion is also irresponsible IMO. We're not all making up these threads to pat ourselves on the back and to feel superior, we're doing it strictly for the health of the fish and probably a little bit of being impatient (since you can stock completely much faster with a FC) and lazy (fewer PWC's).

Data is hard and fast numbers, opinion is saying my fish "look" fine or "I didn't lose one". The former is done with a test kit, the latter is the out of sight out of mind mentality that leads to problems, if not immediately, later down the line.

Both fish and fishless cycling are viable options to creating a safe and healthy tank at the cycle's completion, but its hard to argue that fishless cycling is not better during the actual cycle.

 

[fish 'n' fries]

What data do you want to see? I've heard this exact comment several times on here by different people and it amazes me every time. Every single fishless cycling post on this site is anecdotal data. To take one is irresponsible as the sample size is too small and you could have an anomaly that does not accurately show a trend

.

I actually said both are valid options. I'm not arguing that point. And I'm sure they appeal to different people based on personalities. Personally, my test kits are probably the biggest waste of money I've ever spent in keeping fish.

That said, I wonder how you know fishless is better as opposed to equal? (you have to assume both done correctly to compare...not dumping a full or overstocked fish load in a new tank) As you point out...there's anecdotal evidence galore, on both sides of the argument. I'd argue there's probably more, if only because of the length of time, for fish-y cycles. But I'm sceptical of anecdotal information..."this medicine's great; it made my cold get better in 7 days"...of course if you don't your cold will resolve in a week I know it's unlikely anyone's going to do actual studies...but it raises my hackles when people state "its obviously better" with nothing scientific to back it.

Yes, if you know nothing about fish...it may be safer, less risky to do a fishless cycle. It's harder to screw up and if you do there aren't fish involved. However, I've kept fish for probably 12 or 13 years...not counting when I was too young to really be "keeping the fish". I've started several tanks in that time...never doing a fishless cycle. I read about it with my most recent tank and decided it didn't seem better--despite the arguments posed--than the method I've used for years. My fish have not died early. They spawn. Short of ending their lives and dissecting them...I'm not sure how else to judge if they've been affected by a cycle.

I agree, fishless cycling is a valid option...as is fishy...as is a planted/silent. I simply felt the need to state my experience because I feel other options/view points need to be presented on this board...as evidenced by the occasional post the starts out "I know everyone's going to say I'm awful...but I have a new tank with fish it it..."

 

[7Enigma]

Personally, my test kits are probably the biggest waste of money I've ever spent in keeping fish.

I'll say that for me the test kit was/is probably my least USED piece of equipment I own. But it will be the first thing I run to when I have a fish death, or an algae outbreak, or anything out of the ordinary. A large water change will probably follow regardless, but its good to know where you stand in terms of ammonia/nitrIte/pH.

That said, I wonder how you know fishless is better as opposed to equal? (you have to assume both done correctly to compare...not dumping a full or overstocked fish load in a new tank)

I think in all but the largest tanks with the smallest number/size of starting fish you will have elevated levels of ammonia/nitrIte with a fish cycle. None (detectable) is better than some. Even a little bit. We can't communicate directly with fish. We don't know how even a modest amount of ammonia/nitrIte effects their behavior, stress level, susceptibility to disease. So if I know I can add fish and not detect ammonia/nitrIte, that seems better.

Silent cycling with fish and plants I will concede is a viable and when done correctly an equal method to fishless cycling. I feel it is much more challenging with greater potential for problems (algae outbreaks, ammonia/nitrIte spike if your plants begin to die and add more toxins than the fish), but that probably appeals to some. An advanced aquarist looking for a challenge would probably get a kick out of starting a high light, CO2 injected tank with a modest amount of fish on day 1. But this is by no means a good method for a beginner that is just learning about the hobby.

So to sum it up:


As a whole not taking into account experience and effort needed to properly monitor and avoid potential problems...

[fishless cycling = silent cycling] > fish cycling

But I'd wager if you take into account all possible issues and time involved....

fishless cycling > silent cycling > fish cycling

 

[fish 'n' fries]

in all but the largest tanks with the smallest number/size of starting fish you will have elevated levels of ammonia/nitrIte with a fish cycle. None (detectable) is better than some. Even a little bit.

You're never going to keep fish (for any length of time at least) without them being exposed at some point to small amounts of ammonia and nitrite. If you have an established tank you will have enough bacteria to breakdown exactly the amount of ammonia and nitrite created in your tank. So you add three new fish...there will be a small bump in both. At most one may do a partial water change. Starting a cycle with an small number of fish compared to the amount of water is the same concept. The ammonia and then nitrite produced will be diluted by the volume of water.

I'll say that for me the test kit was/is probably my least USED piece of equipment I own. But it will be the first thing I run to when I have a fish death, or an algae outbreak, or anything out of the ordinary. A large water change will probably follow regardless, but its good to know where you stand in terms of ammonia/nitrIte/pH.

I can only speak for myself--you're more than welcome to take my test kits. If my fish aren't acting properly I'll do a water change regardless of whether ammonia or nitrite are testing as elevated (and that's in a hobby grade kit, which I don't know about you but I've certainly never bother calibrating...) so, as the cure is the same regardless, I don't see the utility in the test.

I think each person has to take into account the issues for themselves to decide which is best. Not everyone has the same values of what is burdensome or most important (testing vs water changes etc.) so not everyone may create the same ranking as you.

But to each their own. You're not going to be cycling my tanks nor am I going to be cycling yours...

 

[7Enigma]

You're never going to keep fish (for any length of time at least) without them being exposed at some point to small amounts of ammonia and nitrite.

Of course! There is no way unless you are constantly monitoring the tank to have a fish death, plant rot, unknown chemical in the water. The difference is one is a choice, and the other happens by accident. Adding fish at a later time can easily be controlled by lightly fasting the tank for a day or so. The difference between starting a fish cycle and having an established tank and adding in additional fish is night and day. A 1 day fast when new fish are added has always allowed me to keep 0 readings on ammonia and nitrIte. And again, even if those levels rise slightly they will VERY quickly drop since the large population of bacteria only needs to slightly increase.

I can only speak for myself--you're more than welcome to take my test kits. If my fish aren't acting properly I'll do a water change regardless of whether ammonia or nitrite are testing as elevated (and that's in a hobby grade kit, which I don't know about you but I've certainly never bother calibrating...) so, as the cure is the same regardless, I don't see the utility in the test.

The utility of the test is to know if you have 5ppm vs. 0.5ppm of ammonia/nitrIte. In your case you will probably do a 50-75% change and think all is well. If it was 0.5ppm ammonia, you'd be fine. But if it was 5ppm you still have unsafe levels. The test allows you to, with a reasonable sense of accuracy, understand where your tank stands and better prepare you for what needs to be done to correct it.