Magazine Rant

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

supermazz9

Aquarium Advice Activist
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
178
Location
Vancouver, Canada
I'd like to start off by saying that it's kinda disapointing that I don't see any rants in here about stuff folks have seen. Me likes a good rant.

That being said...so I get this magazine; Aquarium Fish International. I'm reading through, some stuff kind of interesting, and then I read it. A newly set-up aquarium has a limited capacity to support fish. Ohhh, I think to myself, I know where this is going. It goes on to a very short explanation of the cycle, adding that the most common mistake is to add fish to the aquarium before there are enough nitrifying bacteria present. Ok, I relax a little, I guess this is going to be ok...that wasn't exactly right, but it was half right and on the right track.

Oh, oh. .The problem is that the bacteria don't reproduce until there are waste products available, and there are no waste products available until there are fish in the aquarium

So, how do you get this cycle started? it asks, and I'm already thinking to myself, "no, no, please don't print what I know you're about to, " and then bang, there it is.

Many aquarists simply start with a few hardy fish and then add more over a number of weeks as the bacteria multiply. Make it stop! Several companies make proprietary concoctions of live bacteria and nutrients to not only get the cycle started but also to ensure that it goes as quickly as possible to safeguard the health of the first fish in the aquarium. When setting up a new aquarium, I'd consider one of these products, but they aren't essential to having a successful aquarium.

Nothing about that was right.

Geez. There are two types of people reading this.
a) like me, who are a little pissed right now, because they understand what they are reading.
b) someone who doesn't understand really what they're reading, are running out right now to buy a 30g tank, a dozen hardy looking fish (which likely aren't but sure are pretty looking) and a bottle of Cycle, because, well, that's what they're going to go through, right?

Not a hint of fishless cycle, going so far to suggest that most anyone who know's what they're doing is doing this crazy fish cycle.

Ahhhh...just had to get that off my chest.
 
and yet millions of people have done liek the magazine stated and ended up with very succesful aquariums and no fish loss during the process, I've always added fish to help the cycling along and they have all lived and been healthy, as long as you monitor your water daily and keep up with water changes, theres nothing wrong IMO about what the magazine is stating, I do not agree witht he part about the chemicals all the way though, stuff liek Stress Zyme is ok to add to an established tank after doing large water changes or adding fish but I rarely use it, I keep a small 8 oz bottle around for when I add new fish or do a large water change, but I never do a fishless cycle, I'd say a vast majority of people on here don't do the fishless cycle, its just what you prefer and like I said as long as you monitor everything theres really no difference
 
It's not so much the fish cycle...I mean, that's part of it, and what bit me in the butt, but it was mostly how they referred to it. That the only thing nitrifying bacteria eat is fish waste (not outright stated but strongly implied). The fact that this was written for a newbie, and either glossed over or completely skipped important stages of the cycle, and what was happening.

Yes there is a huge difference doing a fishless cycle. A properly done fishless cycle WILL prepare your tank to receive a full load of fish, all at once, with no fear of spikes. With a fish cycle you are forcing a few "hardy" fish to endure unfavorable conditions while the tank catches up around them. And then, when you add more fish, viola, minicycle, since you will only produce enough bacteria to consume your current load. This is obviouly a bit of a generality, but I trust you get the point.

Also, seeing as this article is aimed at newbies, they likely won't have any seed material (yah, it would have been nice if the article suggested this).

I'm not saying that you can't start a successful aquarium this way. It obviously can be done, as you have, as I did on my first go round, and as you said, as millions of others have done. That being said, throwing in a couple of fish isn't going to "help your cycle along". either you have a cycle started (have an ammonia source that isn't a fish) or you just have a tank with water in it. The fish itself isn't doing anything to "help" the cycle, except produce waste, and the fish isn't neccessary to do that.

So again, it's not so much that the article is wrong (it is, being that it implies the only way to get your cycle started is with fish, which IS NOT true), but...it's...misleading...no, wait, I guess it is that the article is wrong (well, this part of it), simply because that's huge. Yes you can do a fish cycle, but it doesn't even present the much better (for everything involved, with the possible exception of the cocktail shrimp that had to die) idea of a fishless cycle.
 
I'm not the least bit surprised supermazz. This is a great thread because much of what is written can be misleading or ambiguous. It appears to me that the writer of that article wanted to make it as simplistic as possible. He/She isn't stating anything incorrectly, but neither are they giving enough info.

Why not write the magazine and tell them your opinion. Perhaps they will even let you write an article for them.
 
i am not familiar with this magazine, do they have a "letter to the editor" or similar section you can voice your concern in?
 
I don't think the magazine article said anything wrong. I see nothing wrong with the statement, "Many aquarists simply start with a few hardy fish and then add more over a number of weeks as the bacteria multiply." This goes hand in hand with what I believe about cycling WITH fish. I think it is perfectly fine to chose a specie of fish that is "hardy" (more tolerable of higher ammonia/nitrite/nitrate levels) to stablize an aquarium. This method is surely more interesting to look at than a FISHLESS cylce and it does the fish no harm when these previously listed parameters are kept in check to reasonable amounts. It may require that PWC's every other day or so are required to keep these levels safe for the more hardy fish in the tank, but that is part of a cycle with fish. I don't see why aquarists are so against cycling with fish because there is nothing wrong with it when done the right way. I have ALWAYS done it and have never lost a fish to it. I even tried it with ghost shrimp and it worked perfectly fine. They are quite a bit more sensitive to changes in water conditions but I kept them to reasonable levels with no losses. I think it is more of the person to blame or praise for the outcome of the cylce than it is to praise or blame the cylce itself.
 
Well, I always put fish in the new tank, but then it's been a while since I cycled a tank from scratch. I have multiple tanks and if I start a new one then I move in a lot of material - gravel, biomedia - and just have a minicycle with a lowish fish load...

Back when I started with a new first tank then it was just start with a low fish load and work the tank up to speed.

If I had to start from scratch now then I don't know what I'd do... Fishless probably to save the hassles and risks of losing fish...

And it's not just losing fish. Even if the fish don't seem harmed by the cycle, you can't be sure that no damage is done.
 
amosf said:
Well, I always put fish in the new tank, but then it's been a while since I cycled a tank from scratch. I have multiple tanks and if I start a new one then I move in a lot of material - gravel, biomedia - and just have a minicycle with a lowish fish load...

Yep, I think my only grief with it would be that the article hasn't made mention of any other steps, like the ones you write about amosf. Moving over filter material from a friends tank, or gravel etc., is an option they've ignored. You'd be surprised how easy it may be to find someone who knows someone who knows someone who already has a fish tank!

I can see why they didn't explain the cycle in full: talking chemistry at people will only scare them off if they're new to the hobby. I always get asked by people viewing my new tanks "so, when are you adding the fish then? Isn't that a bit boring right now?" or "it looks nice, but where are the fish?" etc. When I try to explain about cycling, I can visibly see their eyes go dull lol.

What they ought to have done is say "here is a quick summary, but we recommend you go read X, Y, and Z, to understand why doing A, B and C is important" etc.
 
Put 6 Tetras, Danios, Mollies... whatever in a completely uncycled 55+ gallon tank and leave them for 6 weeks. You'll have no fish loses and no noticable spike in ammonia or nitrites and the tank will be cycled. If there is enough water to disperse the ammonia so the bacteria has a chance to build up, no fish will be hurt.

FWIW, other than my first tank, I've always cycled with used filter media. The article is misleading and should suggest the proper ways to cycle with and without fish.

Nik
 
I've seen numerous articles such as that and somewhere along the line, the author will promote the use of a nitrifying bacteria additive. Notwithstanding the lack of information of what the cycle really is, a newbie will no doubt follow those directions and it's hit or miss afterward.

I recieved a nice pamphlet with my 30gal tank. Had a ton of information about the nitrogen cycle and the 1" per gal rule. It also recommended cycle but what it did not mention was Test Kits. There I was with a tank going through an ammonia spike of 2.5 (I got the test kits after the fish started dying off). I threw the pamphlet away immediately afterward.
 
I don't think that I am that unhappy about this article. I am currently doing a fishless cycle because I think it is the BEST method - but not the only good method.

Most newbies start with a new tank, and overstock from day 1. These people are not dumb or careless, they just don't know better. The simple method described in the article is a huge step in the right dirrection.

I think that if you gave a newbie a huge long article about the nitrogen cycle and how to do a fishless cycle by adding ammonia every day and testing for ammonia, nitrites and nitrates - I think we would only confuse them or scare them. Personally, I doubt that many people setting up their very first tank would be ambitious enough to research and perform a fishless cycle.

In this sense, I think the article was well written (aside from the bacteria additives). It was simple, straight forward and made suggestions more likely to be followed by the target audience.

JMHO

P.S. Before I get flamed too harshly, please remember that I am currently doing a fishless cycle because I think it is the best way - but not the best way for beginners.
 
Back
Top Bottom