Why cycle the long way round

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.
A fishless cycle is as safe as you can get. It can be sped up with seeded material.

Thinking back the fishless cycle was best for myself. I fluffed it but it gave me time to learn stuff I'd never heard of previously.

Really though case by case makes sense. Could do fish in now.

One last point is there is nothing worse than dealing with sick fish in a tank still cycling.
 
Last edited:
I've done a fishless cycle with and without seeded material. For me it was about the ease of it all. Why bother with constant water changes, constant checking of parameters, overuse of prime, etc etc.

I didn't have to worry about ANY of that. High ammo and nitrite readings? Who cares, there's no fish anyway. Let the cycle run its course and get on with life.
 
Except if you do a fish in cycle well (plant cycle) you don't have to check anything constantly and you can even cut water changes down to weekly. I just set up 12 tanks last month and fish in cycled every one without a single emergency water change or sick fish.

Sent from Peabody's rabbit hole.
 
Except if you do a fish in cycle well (plant cycle) you don't have to check anything constantly and you can even cut water changes down to weekly. I just set up 12 tanks last month and fish in cycled every one without a single emergency water change or sick fish.

Sent from Peabody's rabbit hole.

Sure, but you are good at this and have plenty of experience. The typical newby (I was like this too) is still struggling to accept that they can't put whatever amount of whatever fish they want into the tank. They are still learning things which experienced people don't even think about any more, like managing temperature or not using soap to clean aquarium stuff.

They don't know what a stressed fish looks like, or how to do a water change.

Apart from the fact that fishless cycling means no fish suffer during the beginning of the learning phase, it gives you lots of time to research what fish work in your tank and how to avoid over stocking.

I've seen people say that fishless cycling is for the impatient but I don't understand that. Surely it's a great way to learn patience?

I don't think there is anything wrong with doing a fish in cycle if you are experienced. But I understand why fishless is recommended for beginners
 
I would have to argue that learning a good basic fish-in cycling process is just as easy at learning how to fishless cycle. I think it's important to further define fish-in cycle in this context as a controlled method, rather than a by-product of a new fishkeeper spending venture.

No, you can't take a brand new 10 gallon and put 10 fish in it. You also can't just dump a bottle of ammonia in it either. So following a basic guideline goes a long way for both methods.

Both methods utilize regular testing, so there's not much of a difference there.
So I guess it comes down to their ability to follow directions.

If you are stocking properly (i.e. slowly and slightly) then the chances of a fish being stressed due to new tank syndrome are minimized greatly, and any ammonia that is being created will be registered on a test well before it has an impact on the fish in the tank.

And everyone learns how to do a water change pretty quickly, it's not rocket surgery, and I don't see how this makes the case for fishless cycling. If someone isn't capable of doing a water change they probably shouldn't be caring for a fish tank.

I do agree that fishless cycling teaches patience, usually to an entire family since they all get to stare at an empty tank. Learning patience is good, I just don't see why it is necessarily an applicable chore that every new fishkeeper should be going through. Fish-in cycling requires a lot of patience as well as control, if you consider that a person has to make a conscious decision of what, how much they stock, and when.

You make a good point that the fishless process gives a person time to do research and learn more about fishkeeping, but not everyone needs a 3-4 week period to do that. And some people do their research long before they get their tank, or they let their tank sit empty till they get a good gameplan.

There are a A LOT of people who walk out of a pet store with a bag of fish under one arm and a tank under the other. The solution for fishless cyclers is to tell them to return all their fish to the store, which most people shrug off. These scenarios are often used as an example that the fishless cyclers point at when they talk about crazy water changes, sick fish, and stress all around.

My solution is to teach them about the nitrogen cycle so they get an understanding of why things are happening in the tank, and the way to fix them.
 
I would have to argue that learning a good basic fish-in cycling process is just as easy at learning how to fishless cycle. I think it's important to further define fish-in cycle in this context as a controlled method, rather than a by-product of a new fishkeeper spending venture.

No, you can't take a brand new 10 gallon and put 10 fish in it. You also can't just dump a bottle of ammonia in it either. So following a basic guideline goes a long way for both methods.

Both methods utilize regular testing, so there's not much of a difference there.
So I guess it comes down to their ability to follow directions.

If you are stocking properly (i.e. slowly and slightly) then the chances of a fish being stressed due to new tank syndrome are minimized greatly, and any ammonia that is being created will be registered on a test well before it has an impact on the fish in the tank.

And everyone learns how to do a water change pretty quickly, it's not rocket surgery, and I don't see how this makes the case for fishless cycling. If someone isn't capable of doing a water change they probably shouldn't be caring for a fish tank.

I do agree that fishless cycling teaches patience, usually to an entire family since they all get to stare at an empty tank. Learning patience is good, I just don't see why it is necessarily an applicable chore that every new fishkeeper should be going through. Fish-in cycling requires a lot of patience as well as control, if you consider that a person has to make a conscious decision of what, how much they stock, and when.

You make a good point that the fishless process gives a person time to do research and learn more about fishkeeping, but not everyone needs a 3-4 week period to do that. And some people do their research long before they get their tank, or they let their tank sit empty till they get a good gameplan.

There are a A LOT of people who walk out of a pet store with a bag of fish under one arm and a tank under the other. The solution for fishless cyclers is to tell them to return all their fish to the store, which most people shrug off. These scenarios are often used as an example that the fishless cyclers point at when they talk about crazy water changes, sick fish, and stress all around.

My solution is to teach them about the nitrogen cycle so they get an understanding of why things are happening in the tank, and the way to fix them.


I'd say it comes down to an ability to manage risk. What do you know that you don't know and what don't you know that you don't know. Stocking properly - how do we define that as a guideline? Water changes - sure easy to do but understanding why. My goodness how many posts are there trying to explain all of this?

New fish keeper and new fish - what could go wrong? Well I'd say quite a lot. People that use feeder fish or hardy fish to cycle are really saying we don't have exact control or we're not confident to risk a $50 fish.

Yeah, no sorry - still not convinced. And I'm not convinced because it's not that long since I've been through this.

I would agree though it is important to understand both.
 
Big post. Overly complicated. I can sense you are passionate about the topic but fishless cycle isn't as complex as you make it to be, allows a large margin of error & fishless cycle teaches the nitrogen cycle just as well as a fish in cycle.

Simply put. If you stuff up a fishless cycle, other than lost time it's not a big deal. If you stuff up a fish in cycle you lose time and can permanently maim or kill many or all of the fish.

Anyway. This is now way off topic. This was about seeded material as the panacea for those who are short of patience. Seeded material is just as effective in a fishless or fish in cycle.
 
I would have to argue that learning a good basic fish-in cycling process is just as easy at learning how to fishless cycle. I think it's important to further define fish-in cycle in this context as a controlled method, rather than a by-product of a new fishkeeper spending venture.

No, you can't take a brand new 10 gallon and put 10 fish in it. You also can't just dump a bottle of ammonia in it either. So following a basic guideline goes a long way for both methods.

Both methods utilize regular testing, so there's not much of a difference there.
So I guess it comes down to their ability to follow directions.

If you are stocking properly (i.e. slowly and slightly) then the chances of a fish being stressed due to new tank syndrome are minimized greatly, and any ammonia that is being created will be registered on a test well before it has an impact on the fish in the tank.

And everyone learns how to do a water change pretty quickly, it's not rocket surgery, and I don't see how this makes the case for fishless cycling. If someone isn't capable of doing a water change they probably shouldn't be caring for a fish tank.

I do agree that fishless cycling teaches patience, usually to an entire family since they all get to stare at an empty tank. Learning patience is good, I just don't see why it is necessarily an applicable chore that every new fishkeeper should be going through. Fish-in cycling requires a lot of patience as well as control, if you consider that a person has to make a conscious decision of what, how much they stock, and when.

You make a good point that the fishless process gives a person time to do research and learn more about fishkeeping, but not everyone needs a 3-4 week period to do that. And some people do their research long before they get their tank, or they let their tank sit empty till they get a good gameplan.

There are a A LOT of people who walk out of a pet store with a bag of fish under one arm and a tank under the other. The solution for fishless cyclers is to tell them to return all their fish to the store, which most people shrug off. These scenarios are often used as an example that the fishless cyclers point at when they talk about crazy water changes, sick fish, and stress all around.

My solution is to teach them about the nitrogen cycle so they get an understanding of why things are happening in the tank, and the way to fix them.

I think everything you say here is true, but I'm just generally more skeptical and/or jaded about your average 'beginning aquarist'. It's easy for use to forget what it's like back at square one of this hobby sometimes, and just how much information (and often misinformation) is thrown at beginners sometimes. Perhaps there's an aspect of paternalism in there as well. Both sides are the argument use entirely too much hyperbole, which doesn't help either and tends to pit the sides against each other.
 
Either way is a means to an end and the end product is what counts. While some folks don't mind waiting a month to do a fish less cycle others want instant gratification. Both can be done successfully.

I think an informed hobbiest would be the best solution. If people know what to expect and how the nitrogen cycle works they can make an informed decision based on their needs.

With that said I prefer a fish in cycle myself and also try to keep seeded media around for new tanks so I can pretty much instant cycle. I've seen too many instances of fish less cycling stall to be interested in it.
 
Big post. Overly complicated. I can sense you are passionate about the topic but fishless cycle isn't as complex as you make it to be, allows a large margin of error & fishless cycle teaches the nitrogen cycle just as well as a fish in cycle.

Simply put. If you stuff up a fishless cycle, other than lost time it's not a big deal. If you stuff up a fish in cycle you lose time and can permanently maim or kill many or all of the fish.
What about it is complicated? It takes a lot of words to explain a concept that is in a minority view. No one ever talks about the pros of fish-in cycling, or the cons of fishless, other than it's learning 'patience' lol. There's plenty of other things in life to learn patience on, I don't think most people would stare at an empty tank for a month if they knew they could start stocking fish immediately and enjoy their tank with a very minimal chance of issue.

If one kills or maims any fish at all then they didn't understand the basic concepts of doing a proper fish-in cycle.

I don't recommend fish-in cycling for people who can't follow basic guidelines. Heck, I don't recommend fishkeeping at all for those that can't.

I do agree with aqua_chem in that I may be generally overestimating the capacity of new fishkeepers, and as a whole, yes there's a lot out there that are uninformed. But I also think that the people who come onto a forum like this have a better capacity and willingness to learn compared to the fishkeeping community as a whole.

Hope this post wasn't too big. :hide:
 
I'd say it comes down to an ability to manage risk. What do you know that you don't know and what don't you know that you don't know. Stocking properly - how do we define that as a guideline? Water changes - sure easy to do but understanding why. My goodness how many posts are there trying to explain all of this?

New fish keeper and new fish - what could go wrong? Well I'd say quite a lot. People that use feeder fish or hardy fish to cycle are really saying we don't have exact control or we're not confident to risk a $50 fish.

Yeah, no sorry - still not convinced. And I'm not convinced because it's not that long since I've been through this.

I would agree though it is important to understand both.

I wrote an article on it, and I think I may end up writing a book on it. Fish-in Cycling: Step over into the dark side - Aquarium Advice

There's a lot of risk in walking along the highway, but if you learn how to use the sidewalk you greatly minimize your chances of an incident.

I don't recommend feeder fish, or 'hardy' fish to cycle a tank with. That's an old school method that does not have any empathy or concern for the fish. I don't want that methodology to get confused with this one (as it often does, unfortunately).

I recommend cycling the tank with fish that you intend to keep in the tank. The only caveat I make to that is to save the known sensitive fish for last, just in case. (i.e. rams, discus, etc)
 
Im on board with jeta here. Any time I have to talk to abperson about cycling I always try to introduce both fish in and fishless. Imho. Neither one is better or worse than the other and bith are perfectly humane. That is assuming they are done properly. Its also important to note that fish in cycling can be a bit more work with water changes.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Aquarium Advice mobile app
 
I will add my 2 cents.I don't cycle, as such. I will usually come home from a club meeting with a bag of fish. This often requires setting up a tank immediately, often with a new filter. What I will do is take the sponge and wipe down the glass of an existing tank. I think that this works better than adding a lot of unprocessed crud from another filter. Regardless, I have yet to lose a fish from this.
 
+100 for the entire post, jetajockey.

in my experience and opinion, there is more patience, care and learning involved doing a fish-in cycle than a fishless one provided proper advice and guidance is provided to the newcomer to the hobby.
But sadly often talk of fish-in cycling on these forums is met with harsh and viscous attacks on a person's moral character because the ill-informed believe it to be cruel and tortuous to the fish, although I venture that a good portion of those who launch these verbal assaults have never actually done a fish-in cycle or are relative "newbies" themselves.

According to the consensus of proper fish keeping practices here, my fish should be dead, yet instead they are spawning .

My solution is to teach them about the nitrogen cycle so they get an understanding of why things are happening in the tank, and the way to fix them.

(y)

but for some reason whenever I have tried to do that here it's met with
"I don't care about that silly chemistry stuff"
or
"people don't like convoluted answers"

so what's a person to do
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with doing a fish in cycle if you are experienced. But I understand why fishless is recommended for beginners
Yeah, I agree with this as well. Ultimately, I am not really opposed to either method. I think they both have pros and cons. All else being equal I am more likely to recommend a fishless cycle to someone who I know to be a beginner and know nothing about.

There are a A LOT of people who walk out of a pet store with a bag of fish under one arm and a tank under the other. The solution for fishless cyclers is to tell them to return all their fish to the store, which most people shrug off.
While I certainly agree with you that there a few people that do this, I don't think the majority is in so extreme of a position. Clearly, once someone has fish, telling them to fishless cycle is relatively silly. At this point, the best thing to do is exactly as you suggest. Educate them as best we can about how to keep their fish alive.

I think everything you say here is true, but I'm just generally more skeptical and/or jaded about your average 'beginning aquarist'. It's easy for use to forget what it's like back at square one of this hobby sometimes, and just how much information (and often misinformation) is thrown at beginners sometimes.
I agree with this. Also remember that not everyone has the same capacity to process information. The advantage of teaching beginners to do a fishless cycle is that if a mistake is made nothing dies in the process. I mean, think of how many questions there are on here weekly about fishless cycling by people who have read the fishless cycling guide. Some people can read the guide and do it right the first time. Others can't.

When I meet people in a store or some other gathering I have the ability to assess the person and provide appropriate advice based on observations and intuition. Across the internet that is much harder to do. I don't think recommending fishless cycling to the beginner is a bad idea because of that.

Case in point, my neighbor is a total beginner but he is the type to learn everything he can before jumping in. He came to me for advice and had been reading about fishless cycling. I basically told him not to worry about it doing it that way and taught him how to cycle with fish.


I will add my 2 cents.I don't cycle, as such. I will usually come home from a club meeting with a bag of fish. This often requires setting up a tank immediately, often with a new filter. What I will do is take the sponge and wipe down the glass of an existing tank. I think that this works better than adding a lot of unprocessed crud from another filter. Regardless, I have yet to lose a fish from this.
You are still cycling your tank. You just aren't measuring.


At the end of the day, I think both methods work. Ultimately, they are not even that different. To me the answer for fishless vs fish-in is highly situational.
 
I agree with this. Also remember that not everyone has the same capacity to process information. The advantage of teaching beginners to do a fishless cycle is that if a mistake is made nothing dies in the process. I mean, think of how many questions there are on here weekly about fishless cycling by people who have read the fishless cycling guide. Some people can read the guide and do it right the first time. Others can't.

When I meet people in a store or some other gathering I have the ability to assess the person and provide appropriate advice based on observations and intuition. Across the internet that is much harder to do. I don't think recommending fishless cycling to the beginner is a bad idea because of that

post-29481-Ryan-from-The-Office-agrees-gi-1MNe.gif


That's a powerful point as well. In clinical practice, 50% of medications are not taken as prescribed; this is often a matter of their own health. Why do we think that people are going to be perfect at following advice online for their fish? I think it's somewhat human nature to trust that people follow your advice, but so often that's not what actually happens (as above). The stakes tend to be much lower in a fishless cycle in case this does happen.
 
That's a powerful point as well. In clinical practice, 50% of medications are not taken as prescribed; this is often a matter of their own health. Why do we think that people are going to be perfect at following advice online for their fish? I think it's somewhat human nature to trust that people follow your advice, but so often that's not what actually happens (as above). The stakes tend to be much lower in a fishless cycle in case this does happen.

Would you change the way you prescribe medicine across the board just because some people choose not to follow the directions? I don't think we should be giving advice based on what the person receiving it chooses to do with it.

What good is advice when you are already assuming that the person isn't going to follow it?


Re: dalto, I don't think recommending fishless cycling is a bad thing, there are some people who feel better doing them for whatever reason. My issue stems more from people villainizing fish-in because of their own ignorance on the subject.

Most of the people that I see in threads screwing up the fishless cycles usually has to do with shopping around for the right ammonia, having pH crashes (typical with a ridiculously oversized biofilter being supported), or just not having anything happen (impatience perhaps). It usually doesn't have anything to do with them messing something up. The only way you could screw up a fish-in cycle is if you a) stock too many fish and then b) don't test/do regular water changes as needed.
 
Would you change the way you prescribe medicine across the board just because some people choose not to follow the directions? I don't think we should be giving advice based on what the person receiving it chooses to do with it.

What good is advice when you are already assuming that the person isn't going to follow it?

The point is that in person you have a better sense of a person, if you think they'll be compliant, if they'll try to understand the task before them. It's some that we do all the time, eg aspirin vs coumadin with the latter being generally better but needed regular follow-up and monitoring, and good adherence by the patient to diet and pill schedule. I would NEVER put someone on coumadin over the internet though, because the stakes are too great. Similarly, if I think that there's a decent chance that advice isn't going to followed, why would I not opt for a pathway that has a minimal chance of blowing up if not followed to the T? Someone that does a fish-in cycle 70% correct may kill some of their fish, vs someone who does a fishless cycle 70% correct won't.

Of course if in talking to someone online I get the impression that they've done some legwork on the matter and have a decent understanding, I would feel more comfortable putting them on the fish-in path.
 
I'm all for the old fashion cycling whether fish in or not, I personally go with the fish in whenever I had to cycle from scratch. I mean old fashion as just letting the tank and filter do its job in the time needed vs using the bottle bacteria which can be very inconsistent.

I know a lot of you will bash me for this but cycling a tank has become the mystery that does not need to be, the key is patience, fish in cycles can be as easy as putting a fish or two in the tank, do very frequent water changes and eventually the filter will cycle. The fish provides a slow steady input of ammonia into the water. Not fast enough... gather some dirty filter floss from an established aquarium, preferably from someone you can trust as far as not introducing any diseases into your tank and you'll have a cycled tank in a week.
 
Back
Top Bottom