Post your test data

[threnjen]

I totally agree with you. We are all over the place. I'm no scientist so I really am not skilled at bringing together everything we find into some cohesive... statement.

I would say the #1 myth that I wanted to dispel when we began is that "high nitrites or ammonia will stall the cycle"
I honestly feel that we have found enough evidence to dispel this. At this point I believe things that can stall the cycle at our small scale include depletion of phosphorous, pH crash, and depletion of dissolved oxygen.

Also I guess #2 myth, which is kind of related to #1, is that x particular level of ppm of ammonia is "ideal" for cycling.
For example I was taught to cycle using craaaazy style ammonia levels, like it got to 18ppm before I ever saw nitrites, and it's doing fine (because the cycle won't stall at our scale from high ammonia or nitrites, see #1)
We want to run a (non scientific) experiment that tasks people with using vastly different dosing schedules to demonstrate that different dosing/cycling methods will work.

I feel like right now we are not sure what we want to accomplish.

I *think* what we want to do is SIMPLIFY CYCLING into elements that will allow it to be completed without any water changes in the optimal amount of time.
I personally do not think the instructions used on this forum accomplish this.

 

[threnjen]

Oh and I think that we can teach to cycle with just one single initial dose of ammonia without adding any more later.

I realized there was another myth which we have dispelled - AOB die off if there is no food. We busted that one too. They can go dormant for months.

 

[aqua_chem]

I would say the #1 myth that I wanted to dispel when we began is that "high nitrites or ammonia will stall the cycle"
I honestly feel that we have found enough evidence to dispel this. At this point I believe things that can stall the cycle at our small scale include depletion of phosphorous, pH crash, and depletion of dissolved oxygen.

Phosphorus, yes. But many other things. An organism is made up of much more than nitrogen and carbon; they also need iron, potassium, magnesium, and a plethora of other nutrients, although only potassium is needed in comparable quantities to phosphate and nitrogen. However, people sometimes think that they can just add ammonia (nitrogen) and call it good. It's little wonder that so many cycles go awry in these circumstances. I generally stick pretty closely to the planted side of things, so all my cycling tanks are provided with a rich nutrient environment, so it's never been something that I've encountered, but I would imagine that some tanks that are little more than glass boxes would have a plethora of other issues. There are, of course, other ways that people cycle tanks, such as using a raw shrimp and leaving it in the tank for weeks on end, likely supply a smattering of other elements to the developing bacterial colonies. Maybe this method has less trouble?



pH crash..... agreed. Moving on.



Oxygen... now this is a different beast. Oxygen is a dynamic molecule in an aquarium in that it is constantly added and removed from the tank at equilibrium with the surroundings: at higher levels more oxygen leaves than enters, and at lower levels more oxygen enters than leaves, eventually achieving a more or less steady state called dynamic equilibrium. In most aquariums, surface agitation will allow oxygen to be exchanged sufficiently such that as oxygen is used by bacteria and converted into CO2, more enters thereby creating a steady supply. You would be hard pressed to make an environment where bacteria would be limited by O2 (possible, but difficult).

lso I guess #2 myth, which is kind of related to #1, is that x particular level of ppm of ammonia is "ideal" for cycling.
For example I was taught to cycle using craaaazy style ammonia levels, like it got to 18ppm before I ever saw nitrites, and it's doing fine (because the cycle won't stall at our scale from high ammonia or nitrites, see #1)
We want to run a (non scientific) experiment that tasks people with using vastly different dosing schedules to demonstrate that different dosing/cycling methods will work.

I don't think that one concentration of ammonia is better or worse for bacteria, at least from a scientific standpoint. 4 ppm is generally used, but I think it was chosen for more practical reasons than anything. Anything more and it becomes a pain to remove with waterchanges (18 ppm converts into about 80 ppm nitrate, so you'll need 3 50% WCs to get it down to 10 ppm, which would be a good starting level for an aquarium), anything less and you'll likely have to add more to be confident in a completed cycle. The thing about bacteria is that they don't really seem care how much ammonia is available as long as A) they don't run out and B) it's not toxic, at least in regards to growth kinetics.

 

[threnjen]

only potassium is needed in comparable quantities to phosphate and nitrogen. However, people sometimes think that they can just add ammonia (nitrogen) and call it good.

So you're saying there are other trace elements required? Would these be depleted in the course of a cycle with no water change though? They must be very, very trace

Oxygen... now this is a different beast. Oxygen is a dynamic molecule in an aquarium in that it is constantly added and removed from the tank at equilibrium with the surroundings: at higher levels more oxygen leaves than enters, and at lower levels more oxygen enters than leaves, eventually achieving a more or less steady state called dynamic equilibrium. In most aquariums, surface agitation will allow oxygen to be exchanged sufficiently such that as oxygen is used by bacteria and converted into CO2, more enters thereby creating a steady supply. You would be hard pressed to make an environment where bacteria would be limited by O2 (possible, but difficult).

Good to know, but unfortunate. We're trying to come up with a good laundry list of why crashes occur.
Like there is a thread right now in the newbie area and I have NO IDEA why her cycle is stalled, none at all...
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f15/help-with-fishless-cycle-290564.html

I don't think that one concentration of ammonia is better or worse for bacteria, at least from a scientific standpoint. 4 ppm is generally used, but I think it was chosen for more practical reasons than anything. Anything more and it becomes a pain to remove with waterchanges (18 ppm converts into about 80 ppm nitrate, so you'll need 3 50% WCs to get it down to 10 ppm, which would be a good starting level for an aquarium), anything less and you'll likely have to add more to be confident in a completed cycle. The thing about bacteria is that they don't really seem care how much ammonia is available as long as A) they don't run out and B) it's not toxic, at least in regards to growth kinetics.

Regarding the WCs I am kind of wondering "so what?", but politely When the tank is fishless cycled I would just perform the biggest WC possible to get out every bit of nitrates I can, then refill, which doesn't seem to be a big issue.
Mostly we want to have other forum members try different levels to show THEM that the high levels of ammonia and nitrite aren't stalling out their cycles since this is such a heavily perpetuated myth.

What are other reasons that you feel a cycle could stall?

 

[aqua_chem]

So you're saying there are other trace elements required? Would these be depleted in the course of a cycle with no water change though? They must be very, very trace

There are many, each necessary for life. Unfortunately, it's usually impractical to know how much of which is found in any individual's tap water. Is it iron? Is it molybdenum? It's impossible to suss out most of the time. Which segues to....

Good to know, but unfortunate. We're trying to come up with a good laundry list of why crashes occur.
Like there is a thread right now in the newbie area and I have NO IDEA why her cycle is stalled, none at all...
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f15/help-with-fishless-cycle-290564.html

As I said, impossible to suss out. Sometimes they do stall, but quite often people don't realize the time commitment of a unaided cycle. She's only one month into her cycle, so I wouldn't necessarily do anything except maybe add some fish food and check again in a week or so. I don't consider anything 'abnormal' until two months have past and the cycle isn't done or nearing completion. If she were another month along, that might be something to be concerned about, but really she should just give it time (and maybe some fish food).

You mentioned something about buckets earlier.... I have some experience on that front. In this case, it was literally just tap water, ammonia, and enough plant fertilizers to supply phosphates and all micronutrients. I put it under my bathroom sink and forgot about it for 2.5 months and it was cycled when I looked at it again. That's fishless cycling in a nutshell to me: giving nature what it needs and getting out of the way. The problem is often in the human factor in that people feel the need to poke and prod at their tank (in the form of testing) until they think they find something wrong with it (that may or may not be normal), and then worry about it. Maybe that's a bit callous, but I honestly believe we would have a fraction of the posts we have about stalled cycles if people just let them sort themselves out.

Continuing on.

Regarding the WCs I am kind of wondering "so what?", but politely When the tank is fishless cycled I would just perform the biggest WC possible to get out every bit of nitrates I can, then refill, which doesn't seem to be a big issue.

Fine. Be that way

Another good reason to use 4 ppm is because that's in the 'dynamic range' of our test kits. If we dosed our tanks up to 20 ppm of ammonia, and your developing bacteria colony eats 2 ppm, you have 18 ppm. But ammonia test cards only have readings at .25, .5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 ppm (ie, along a log scale), and 20 is way off it, as is 18, so you can really see a change. If we dosed 8 (and it went down to 6), there may be a change in color, but it would be very slight such that you wouldn't be able to tell reliably. From 4 to 2 it a much more discernible change, which most amateur aquarists would be able to eyeball the change and know their cycle is at least progressing.

You already explored toxicity to some extent, which I think should be touched on. Is high nitrite (~60 ppm with a 20 ppm dose) toxic to nitrifying bacteria? Are you sure? If you limit yourself to 4 ppm (~12 ppm nitrite), then it's simply one less thing that can gum up the works, and it comes at no cost, that is to say, 20 ppm and 4 ppm will grow bacteria at similar rates assuming no inhibition of bacteria by ammonia.

Mostly we want to have other forum members try different levels to show THEM that the high levels of ammonia and nitrite aren't stalling out their cycles since this is such a heavily perpetuated myth.

What are other reasons that you feel a cycle could stall?

I've never bought that high nitrite could stunt a cycle either, at least not in the levels you see in a fishless cycle. In my bucket, levels would spike up to 12 ppm without a problem. Higher than that I can't say, but within reason, probably.

 

[threnjen]

She's only one month into her cycle, so I wouldn't necessarily do anything except maybe add some fish food and check again in a week or so. I don't consider anything 'abnormal' until two months have past and the cycle isn't done or nearing completion. If she were another month along, that might be something to be concerned about, but really she should just give it time (and maybe some fish food).

She's a month into her cycle however with any nitrites. Beyond what we know from practical experience, at least a few of the papers I have read have graphs about the nitrogen cycle and I think it's generally demonstrated that there should be some evidence of nitrites by two weeks in. For her to go over a month with no trace of nitrites seems abnormal.

You mentioned something about buckets earlier.... I have some experience on that front. In this case, it was literally just tap water, ammonia, and enough plant fertilizers to supply phosphates and all micronutrients. I put it under my bathroom sink and forgot about it for 2.5 months and it was cycled when I looked at it again. That's fishless cycling in a nutshell to me: giving nature what it needs and getting out of the way.

HA yes this is perfect. WHY can't we just dose ammonia once and leave it alone? It's an imperfect number and surely the "correct" number can be devised to yield a 24hr 4ppm turnover, but presumably something "like" 8ppm ammonia could be dosed and then the entire system left alone with no more ammonia dosing, ever!

The problem is often in the human factor in that people feel the need to poke and prod at their tank (in the form of testing) until they think they find something wrong with it (that may or may not be normal), and then worry about it. Maybe that's a bit callous, but I honestly believe we would have a fraction of the posts we have about stalled cycles if people just let them sort themselves out.

Yep, that may be so. But I also think some of it is nutrient depletion (so maybe WC DOES help there) or pH crash.
I think a LOT of it is the misguided cycling instructions on the forum advising that people just keep upping the ammonia.
Can you take a look at this thread:
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f15/why-isnt-my-cycled-done-291882.html
This seems like a prime example. This person has been following the cycling thread religiously resulting in dosing up to 4ppm multiple times per day!! His cycle will never complete simply because the nitrifying bacteria cannot possible catch up with the endless food supply!
And he is simply following the instructions as given by THIS forum.
So as you can see, I wholly object to the directions that we provide to our newbies.

Another good reason to use 4 ppm is because that's in the 'dynamic range' of our test kits. If we dosed our tanks up to 20 ppm of ammonia, and your developing bacteria colony eats 2 ppm, you have 18 ppm. But ammonia test cards only have readings at .25, .5, 1, 2, 4, and 8 ppm (ie, along a log scale), and 20 is way off it, as is 18, so you can really see a change. If we dosed 8 (and it went down to 6), there may be a change in color, but it would be very slight such that you wouldn't be able to tell reliably. From 4 to 2 it a much more discernible change, which most amateur aquarists would be able to eyeball the change and know their cycle is at least progressing.

I can agree with that
I want to make some of our test subjects use high levels though just to prove it can be done. It can't be just me doing the test over and over and claiming it works for me at high levels.

You already explored toxicity to some extent, which I think should be touched on. Is high nitrite (~60 ppm with a 20 ppm dose) toxic to nitrifying bacteria? Are you sure? If you limit yourself to 4 ppm (~12 ppm nitrite), then it's simply one less thing that can gum up the works, and it comes at no cost, that is to say, 20 ppm and 4 ppm will grow bacteria at similar rates assuming no inhibition of bacteria by ammonia.

This is practical and I don't necessarily disagree with the guideline. But I DO want to prove that in application it doesn't matter and I want people to stop with the whole "high nitrites stall your cycle" thing

I've never bought that high nitrite could stunt a cycle either, at least not in the levels you see in a fishless cycle. In my bucket, levels would spike up to 12 ppm without a problem. Higher than that I can't say, but within reason, probably.

There you have it.
My bucket cycle is almost done, and surely has had in excesses of 30ppm nitrite at any given time, from the 18ppm ammonia

 

[aqua_chem]

She's a month into her cycle however with any nitrites. Beyond what we know from practical experience, at least a few of the papers I have read have graphs about the nitrogen cycle and I think it's generally demonstrated that there should be some evidence of nitrites by two weeks in. For her to go over a month with no trace of nitrites seems abnormal.

She HAD nitrite, just not anymore. Often in cases like that, I find that you need to give 'fit all' advice, ie, dose to 4 ppm one more time, add some source of other nutrients, and wait another month. What often goes unmentioned is the 'human' element, ie, are they using their test kits correctly? Her ammonia dropped to 2 from 4, that should give her at least 4 ppm nitrite and 6-7 ppm nitrate, but none shoes up? It doesn't just disappear, the nitrogen has to go somewhere. You will drive yourself INSANE trying to figure out a problem if you're not getting good information. That's part of the problem working in an amateur field (as opposed to professional), you never know how good the person on the other end is.

HA yes this is perfect. WHY can't we just dose ammonia once and leave it alone? It's an imperfect number and surely the "correct" number can be devised to yield a 24hr 4ppm turnover, but presumably something "like" 8ppm ammonia could be dosed and then the entire system left alone with no more ammonia dosing, ever!

I also find it hard to believe that all you nitrifying bacteria will just die off if not given ammonia for a few weeks. More likely than not they'll die back to a base level, and when you give them ammonia again at the end of the process, they'll multiple back to good levels within a few days.

Yep, that may be so. But I also think some of it is nutrient depletion (so maybe WC DOES help there) or pH crash....

Not the best way to supply nutrients, especially considering most tap has relatively low levels of these trace elements and no phosphates, but it may help somewhat. It also resupplies the tank with carbonates to prevent pH crashes

I think a LOT of it is the misguided cycling instructions on the forum advising that people just keep upping the ammonia.
Can you take a look at this thread:
http://www.aquariumadvice.com/forums/f15/why-isnt-my-cycled-done-291882.html
This seems like a prime example. This person has been following the cycling thread religiously resulting in dosing up to 4ppm multiple times per day!! His cycle will never complete simply because the nitrifying bacteria cannot possible catch up with the endless food supply!
And he is simply following the instructions as given by THIS forum.
So as you can see, I wholly object to the directions that we provide to our newbies.

Adding ammonia repeatedly (or at least at that frequency) isn't considered good advice on this forum. I would consider that bad advice actually. It looks like he simply misunderstood the directions or ran into some bad advice, and it would be a fool's errand to try to scrub all the bad advice of the internet.

But yea, five weeks into a cycle and in the middle of the nitrite spike? Right on schedule really. The guy needs to breath a bit and be more patient.

I can agree with that
I want to make some of our test subjects use high levels though just to prove it can be done. It can't be just me doing the test over and over and claiming it works for me at high levels.

There you have it.
My bucket cycle is almost done, and surely has had in excesses of 30ppm nitrite at any given time, from the 18ppm ammonia

As I said, I've never bought it either. With a 4 ppm initial dose, nitrite will spike off the test card, but it never seems to hurt anything. Higher than that, I can't say, but that's part of the virtue of picking a thoroughly tested level like 4 ppm to start with: we know that, at the very least, it works at and around the levels encountered. Advocating higher levels, while very possibly viable, is essentially reinventing the wheel with all associated trial and error.

 

[threnjen]

She HAD nitrite, just not anymore. Often in cases like that, I find that you need to give 'fit all' advice, ie, dose to 4 ppm one more time, add some source of other nutrients, and wait another month. What often goes unmentioned is the 'human' element, ie, are they using their test kits correctly? Her ammonia dropped to 2 from 4, that should give her at least 4 ppm nitrite and 6-7 ppm nitrate, but none shoes up? It doesn't just disappear, the nitrogen has to go somewhere. You will drive yourself INSANE trying to figure out a problem if you're not getting good information. That's part of the problem working in an amateur field (as opposed to professional), you never know how good the person on the other end is.

You're right. But I must soldier on and try! I am at a loss though.

I also find it hard to believe that all you nitrifying bacteria will just die off if not given ammonia for a few weeks. More likely than not they'll die back to a base level, and when you give them ammonia again at the end of the process, they'll multiple back to good levels within a few days.

Why would they die off at all? Bacteria are pretty good at surviving. Like in general. Aren't they?

Not the best way to supply nutrients, especially considering most tap has relatively low levels of these trace elements and no phosphates, but it may help somewhat. It also resupplies the tank with carbonates to prevent pH crashes

I'm just playing devil's advocate with the WC thing. I am against WC during cycling.

Adding ammonia repeatedly (or at least at that frequency) isn't considered good advice on this forum. I would consider that bad advice actually. It looks like he simply misunderstood the directions or ran into some bad advice, and it would be a fool's errand to try to scrub all the bad advice of the internet.

Are you sure of that? Read the fishless cycle sticky by Eco. It is quite clear from the sticky that you should always be re-dosing to 4ppm and it does not state HOW OFTEN. It's obvious to us that he did not mean "every single moment it must be at 4ppm" but in the absence of a time frame supplied I can actually see quite clearly where people might read it that way (must be 4ppm every moment) and I think it's in grave need of an edit.
I'm not in favor of such aggressive dosing after you see nitrites. Well you can probably see from our discussion so far that I'm not necessarily in favor of dosing more than once anyway.
Most cycling articles on the web advocate a serious reduction of both dosage and frequency as soon as nitrites are detected. In strong contrast, our forum's instructions advocate dosing extremely aggressively, to the point where there is the implication to the newbie that 4ppm is a number to be maintained at all times.
Read the sticky if you have the time and you might see what I am referring to.

As a result, the cycle takes a lot longer than it needs to. The nitrite eating bacteria just keep trying to catch up to the nitrites being added, in a loop.
THIS is why people then need to WC - aggressive ammonia dosing.

STOP the aggressive dosing! STOP the WC!!!

But yea, five weeks into a cycle and in the middle of the nitrite spike? Right on schedule really. The guy needs to breath a bit and be more patient.

I disagree - his cycle will never finish dosing to 4ppm from 0 2x a day.

As I said, I've never bought it either. With a 4 ppm initial dose, nitrite will spike off the test card, but it never seems to hurt anything. Higher than that, I can't say, but that's part of the virtue of picking a thoroughly tested level like 4 ppm to start with: we know that, at the very least, it works at and around the levels encountered. Advocating higher levels, while very possibly viable, is essentially reinventing the wheel with all associated trial and error.

Maybe. What if it's better?
But no - I don't want to reinvent the wheel. The wheel is fine. I DO want others to agree it's a myth at our levels so we can tell people to stop spreading it and, worse, worrying about it.

 

[aqua_chem]

Why would they die off at all? Bacteria are pretty good at surviving. Like in general. Aren't they?

Yes. Exceptionally so.

I'm just playing devil's advocate with the WC thing. I am against WC during cycling.

Why's that?

Are you sure of that? Read the fishless cycle sticky by Eco. It is quite clear from the sticky that you should always be re-dosing to 4ppm and it does not state HOW OFTEN. It's obvious to us that he did not mean "every single moment it must be at 4ppm" but in the absence of a time frame supplied I can actually see quite clearly where people might read it that way (must be 4ppm every moment) and I think it's in grave need of an edit.
I'm not in favor of such aggressive dosing after you see nitrites. Well you can probably see from our discussion so far that I'm not necessarily in favor of dosing more than once anyway.
Most cycling articles on the web advocate a serious reduction of both dosage and frequency as soon as nitrites are detected. In strong contrast, our forum's instructions advocate dosing extremely aggressively, to the point where there is the implication to the newbie that 4ppm is a number to be maintained at all times.
Read the sticky if you have the time and you might see what I am referring to.

I went back and read it. Yea, you're right, the fine print isn't really clear at all in that. BUT, the fact that the first few posts essentially were "stop dosing so much" somewhat supports the fact that it's not recommended. What we have hear is a classic case of 'expertitis', that is, someone who thinks they know everything about something posting a guide that's largely correct has information in that's.... not.

As a result, the cycle takes a lot longer than it needs to. The nitrite eating bacteria just keep trying to catch up to the nitrites being added, in a loop.
THIS is why people then need to WC - aggressive ammonia dosing.
...
his cycle will never finish dosing to 4ppm from 0 2x a day.

How are you defining a completed cycled? As I understand it, the 'cycle' is just a term for a matured nitrifying bacteria colony. The tank will cycle in the same amount of time plus or minus a day or so, assuming no nitrite toxicity effects. He'll have to build up a somewhat larger colony than others will, but it will eventually build up to a point where it can denitrify 4 ppm of ammonia into nitrite and then into nitrate within a 12h window (or however often he checks).

 

[threnjen]

Why's that? [re: WCs]

I don't really see how it's necessary. Seems like added work. One of the perks of fishiness cycling (to me) should be futzing with the tank less.
If the dosing instructions weren't so aggressive it would definitely not be an issue, I suspect

I went back and read it. Yea, you're right, the fine print isn't really clear at all in that. BUT, the fact that the first few posts essentially were "stop dosing so much" somewhat supports the fact that it's not recommended. What we have hear is a classic case of 'expertitis', that is, someone who thinks they know everything about something posting a guide that's largely correct has information in that's.... not.

Right but that was all yesterday. Here this person has been endeavoring to follow the sticky all this time Poor person.

How are you defining a completed cycled? As I understand it, the 'cycle' is just a term for a matured nitrifying bacteria colony. The tank will cycle in the same amount of time plus or minus a day or so, assuming no nitrite toxicity effects. He'll have to build up a somewhat larger colony than others will, but it will eventually build up to a point where it can denitrify 4 ppm of ammonia into nitrite and then into nitrate within a 12h window (or however often he checks).

I just I think it would take... quite a long time to handle that much in a 12h window. They don't double that frequently. It's just all so unnecessary. That particular tank is probably already acceptably cycled to 4ppm in a 24 hr period.

 

[Caliban07]

Wow I wake up to this? I'm glad someone has finally taken an interest! Lol

The goal for me was to understand or try to find out why there are so many posts on this forum asking for help during a fishless cycle. We are not done here but we have learned a lot.

I believed that the cycle would benefit from a low initial dosing with increasing doses gradually up to the target. My thoughts before research was that constantly adding 4ppm of ammonia to a bacterial colony that is only just establishing would result in a backlog of nitrites, since reproduction times of nitrite eating bacteria is slower and that is why cycles stall. Because of too high nitrites.

What we now understand is that all the scientific papers and experiments we have read, ammonia dosing was in the hundreds with no direct effect on the cycle.

Now I would consider 4ppm ammonia not so high. We don't think that high levels during a cycle are going to get near the levels used in these experiments so can assume that either high nitrites nor high ammonia is going to stall anything. Maybe the downside to adding so much ammonia at the start is the removal of nitrates before fish. Which is not really a big deal.

It's interesting you mention the shrimp because I was going to mention this last night. This could be quite an effective method.

Scientific research also does not show that bacteria die off as is stated ALOT on this forum.

Also lab tests have shown consistently that cycles are well underway at the 3 weeks mark. None of which mentioned an addition or replenishment of trace elements. (I'm not saying this isn't true)

How long does the fishless cycle instructions say this should take. Maybe a reiteration of patience along the way and a time of up to 2 months would ease people's eagerness and reduce testing. To be honest I've always said I would only ever test for nitrates during a fishless cycle after my initial dosing once I had those id check the others.

One question I do have that bugs me is what happens to heterotrophic bacteria when essentially we are bypassing them by adding pure ammonia. I understand there may be organics in the water that could sustain them or do we not need worry about them.

Yes there are many things a human could do that could effect the cycle. However, if they had instructions that worked effectively 99% of the time things may be less likely to go wrong. I am an engineer and follow manuals religiously so If things don't work after I've done all that was asked I get frustrated. As these people do. But what is more frustrating is seeing people frustrated. The startup of an aquarium is usually the most exciting part to a newbie and the prospect of adding their first fish.

Should we encourage a pinch of fish food an a teaspoon of baking soda at the start?

We have also read that bacteria prefer a temp of 30 degrees,and no light. Maybe we could suggest this. If not already suggested. I need to read the fishless cycling guide I guess.

We were also trying to understand the fish in cycle which is getting a little more in to things with regards to how high nitrite levels have to be to affect fish but we can talk about this later.
The

 

[threnjen]

Wow I wake up to this? I'm glad someone has finally taken an interest! Lol

I know right!
Man what happened to Sixtyfou??
We do have other people that follow this thread even if they don't post much, I've seen other mentions around the forum

The goal for me was to understand or try to find out why there are so many posts on this forum asking for help during a fishless cycle. We are not done here but we have learned a lot.

I'm curious, what else do you think we need to do? Not that I think we're done either. But I'm kind of flailing for what else to actually research. Maybe we are ready to move on to the quasi-scientific cycling experiments.

I believed that the cycle would benefit from a low initial dosing with increasing doses gradually up to the target. My thoughts before research was that constantly adding 4ppm of ammonia to a bacterial colony that is only just establishing would result in a backlog of nitrites, since reproduction times of nitrite eating bacteria is slower and that is why cycles stall. Because of too high nitrites.

What we now understand is that all the scientific papers and experiments we have read, ammonia dosing was in the hundreds with no direct effect on the cycle.

Now I would consider 4ppm ammonia not so high. We don't think that high levels during a cycle are going to get near the levels used in these experiments so can assume that either high nitrites nor high ammonia is going to stall anything. Maybe the downside to adding so much ammonia at the start is the removal of nitrates before fish. Which is not really a big deal.

A+ summary

It's interesting you mention the shrimp because I was going to mention this last night. This could be quite an effective method.

Sounds so... smelly /shudder. I'm sure it's effective though. But... ewww...
How many days does it take for it to start breaking down? Would it make it all take longer?

Scientific research also does not show that bacteria die off as is stated ALOT on this forum.

Also lab tests have shown consistently that cycles are well underway at the 3 weeks mark. None of which mentioned an addition or replenishment of trace elements. (I'm not saying this isn't true)

Often I saw the water is specifically phosphorous buffered, even though a later water change was never mentioned. They front-loaded it with extra phosphorous. I'm glad you mentioned this because I never thought to comment on it, but I saw it a lot. I think phosphorous is quite key so the fish food thing is a lot more important than people realize.

How long does the fishless cycle instructions say this should take. Maybe a reiteration of patience along the way and a time of up to 2 months would ease people's eagerness and reduce testing. To be honest I've always said I would only ever test for nitrates during a fishless cycle after my initial dosing once I had those id check the others.

In the Dr Tim study, which is one of the few that charts the cycle life cycle, it was 40 days so almost 6 weeks. Of course this is done under ideal conditions.
I think what we need is a somewhat specific guide about when you will probably see stuff.
By this I mean:
"You will probably begin to see NitrItes around day 7-10"
"Your nitrItes will be at their highest around Day 21, but will be so off the chart you cannot read them"
"Around day 40 your nitrItes will disappear and your cycle will be complete"
Increasing the range of numbers, but actually providing them at all. One problem is the fishless cycle sticky gives zero indication of when any of these things happen. So here comes Joe Newbie on day 10 freaking out that his cycle is not completed.

One question I do have that bugs me is what happens to heterotrophic bacteria when essentially we are bypassing them by adding pure ammonia. I understand there may be organics in the water that could sustain them or do we not need worry about them.

I don't think we worry about them. I think they are what make an aquarium established vs unestablished. Because they form the biofilm around the aquarium once you have fish. They aren't so important in the pre-fish phase.

Yes there are many things a human could do that could effect the cycle. However, if they had instructions that worked effectively 99% of the time things may be less likely to go wrong. I am an engineer and follow manuals religiously so If things don't work after I've done all that was asked I get frustrated. As these people do. But what is more frustrating is seeing people frustrated. The startup of an aquarium is usually the most exciting part to a newbie and the prospect of adding their first fish.

Yes, I worry about how many people just give up without asking for help, or get fish and do a fish-in INCORRECTLY and then give up

Should we encourage a pinch of fish food an a teaspoon of baking soda at the start?

Fish food - 100% agree
baking soda - I think this is more dependent on their pH and the pH crash will usually come around the nitrite spike. At the expense of making it more complicated, I would tentatively suggest that we advise checking pH every few days once nitrite is detected.
I would suggest it be done in alignment with dosing ammonia, which does not need to be done so often as the sticky advises!! After nitrites are detected, you cut to half dose every 2-4 days. I would compromise on 3. Then the instructions would be to half dose every 3 days and check your pH on that day too. If pH is under 7.0, add 1/4 tsp per 5 gallons (or whatever the correct number is)

We have also read that bacteria prefer a temp of 30 degrees,and no light. Maybe we could suggest this. If not already suggested. I need to read the fishless cycling guide I guess.

It actually does mention this (and the fish food too) but these things aren't reinforced to the newbies. Obviously not an option if there are plants.

We were also trying to understand the fish in cycle which is getting a little more in to things with regards to how high nitrite levels have to be to affect fish but we can talk about this later.
The

I am really still interested in this too! So I'm excited to tackle this after we "complete" the fishless topic

Nicely summarized. I totally see you as an engineer.

 

[aqua_chem]

So I managed to fry my motherboard this morning, so I'm late in getting back, and may be more delayed in the future. Welcome to 2014...

I just I think it would take... quite a long time to handle that much in a 12h window. They don't double that frequently. It's just all so unnecessary. That particular tank is probably already acceptably cycled to 4ppm in a 24 hr period.

The doubling time of these bacteria is 12h for nitrosomas and 18h for nitrobacter. If the definition of a matured biofilter is the ability to convert 4 ppm of ammonia into nitrate in 24h, then the accommodation for dosing every 12h will take less than a day. Because of this exponential growth, bacteria colonies are much more robust than most people give them credit for, eg, death of 99% of the population will be recuperated within a few days. That's also why I don't think that bacteria will die off all the way; rather, they'll die back most of the way, but they'll have the basis to rapidly replenish when ammonia is available again.

 

[aqua_chem]

The goal for me was to understand or try to find out why there are so many posts on this forum asking for help during a fishless cycle. We are not done here but we have learned a lot.

As I alluded to before, I think most of this can be boiled down to A) people trying to grow bacteria in a nutrient deplete environment and B) people being impatient and anxious about getting their tank underway, with likely more B than A. That's my opinion on the matter, combined with personal experience and some microbiology.

I believed that the cycle would benefit from a low initial dosing with increasing doses gradually up to the target. My thoughts before research was that constantly adding 4ppm of ammonia to a bacterial colony that is only just establishing would result in a backlog of nitrites, since reproduction times of nitrite eating bacteria is slower and that is why cycles stall. Because of too high nitrites.

I'm not sure why you think a 'backlog' is necessarily a bad thing. The level of nitrite doesn't matter all that much in the long run, as 90% or so of the nitrite is consumed in the final days of the nitrite portion of the cycle due to the exponential growth. 12 ppm of nitrite is not an unreasonable, although I can see where someone would get into trouble adding 4 ppm of ammonia daily trying to keep their ammonia oxidizing bacteria alive.

What we now understand is that all the scientific papers and experiments we have read, ammonia dosing was in the hundreds with no direct effect on the cycle.

I haven't read all the articles posted previously, but I would offer two bits of skepticism here. It's entirely likely that there are two strains of bacteria involved here, each adapted to live in its own environment. The 100+ ppm found in waste environments is pretty extreme, and I'm not sure that most bacteria could survive in that outside a few strains specially evolved to do so.

Now I would consider 4ppm ammonia not so high. We don't think that lihigh levels during a cycle are going to get near the levels used in these experiments so can assume that either high nitrites nor high ammonia is going to stall anything. Maybe the downside to adding so much ammonia at the start is the removal of nitrates before fish. Which is not really a big deal.

Also the dynamic range for test kits that I mentioned previously. It's not really reasonable to detect changes in concentration outside the range beyond very large shifts.

Scientific research also does not show that bacteria die off as is stated ALOT on this forum.

I've been harping on this point for years, largely to deaf ears it seems. It makes sense that bacteria would die if not fed if you don't have a lot of experience with microbiology.

Also lab tests have shown consistently that cycles are well underway at the 3 weeks mark. None of which mentioned an addition or replenishment of trace elements. (I'm not saying this isn't true)

Which articles are you referring to here? Most academic work deals with bacteria grown on cultures, which will supply all the nutrients/minerals a growing bacteria colony would need.

One question I do have that bugs me is what happens to heterotrophic bacteria when essentially we are bypassing them by adding pure ammonia. I understand there may be organics in the water that could sustain them or do we not need worry about them.

Heterotrophic bacteria aren't as important to fish health immediately, so they're often overlooked in aquaria. There efforts are also difficult to detect as there aren't really test kits that look at organic content, so it's a largely unexplored area in aquaria. That being said, heterotrophs are much fast growing, with some having a doubling time of nearly 20 minutes vs the 12-18h of chemoautotrophs. They'll establish themselves pretty handily. If you've planted your tank, then they'll already be developing as they feed of plant detritus. Everyone should plant their tanks

That being said, I've sometimes wondered to myself if there's some relationship between the diatom blooms and heterotrophic bacteria populations maturing. They seem to pop up in young tanks and go away on their own some weeks later. The official party line on the matter is that they're feeding of leached silicates from new substrates, but the more one explores that, the less true it seems. It's a curiosity, but I'm not sure that we can necessarily get to the bottom it easily.

Yes there are many things a human could do that could effect the cycle. However, if they had instructions that worked effectively 99% of the time things may be less likely to go wrong. I am an engineer and follow manuals religiously so If things don't work after I've done all that was asked I get frustrated. As these people do. But what is more frustrating is seeing people frustrated. The startup of an aquarium is usually the most exciting part to a newbie and the prospect of adding their first fish.

I think that's the hardest part for most people who are fishless cycling. Many people start an aquarium with enthusiasm to get fish, and then end up staring at an empty tank for two months, which kills the excitement. This probably adds to the problem of overtesting to the point that people find problems where there aren't any. Fish-in cycling might be better for some people, depending on their temperament and patience.

Should we encourage a pinch of fish food an a teaspoon of baking soda at the start?

We have also read that bacteria prefer a temp of 30 degrees,and no light. Maybe we could suggest this. If not already suggested. I need to read the fishless cycling guide I guess.

I think those are in there. I know temp and baking soda are at the very least.

 

[Caliban07]

As I alluded to before, I think most of this can be boiled down to A) people trying to grow bacteria in a nutrient deplete environment and B) people being impatient and anxious about getting their tank underway, with likely more B than A. That's my opinion on the matter, combined with personal experience and some microbiology.









I'm not sure why you think a 'backlog' is necessarily a bad thing. The level of nitrite doesn't matter all that much in the long run, as 90% or so of the nitrite is consumed in the final days of the nitrite portion of the cycle due to the exponential growth. 12 ppm of nitrite is not an unreasonable, although I can see where someone would get into trouble adding 4 ppm of ammonia daily trying to keep their ammonia oxidizing bacteria alive.







I haven't read all the articles posted previously, but I would offer two bits of skepticism here. It's entirely likely that there are two strains of bacteria involved here, each adapted to live in its own environment. The 100+ ppm found in waste environments is pretty extreme, and I'm not sure that most bacteria could survive in that outside a few strains specially evolved to do so.







Also the dynamic range for test kits that I mentioned previously. It's not really reasonable to detect changes in concentration outside the range beyond very large shifts.







I've been harping on this point for years, largely to deaf ears it seems. It makes sense that bacteria would die if not fed if you don't have a lot of experience with microbiology.





Which articles are you referring to here? Most academic work deals with bacteria grown on cultures, which will supply all the nutrients/minerals a growing bacteria colony would need.











Heterotrophic bacteria aren't as important to fish health immediately, so they're often overlooked in aquaria. There efforts are also difficult to detect as there aren't really test kits that look at organic content, so it's a largely unexplored area in aquaria. That being said, heterotrophs are much fast growing, with some having a doubling time of nearly 20 minutes vs the 12-18h of chemoautotrophs. They'll establish themselves pretty handily. If you've planted your tank, then they'll already be developing as they feed of plant detritus. Everyone should plant their tanks



That being said, I've sometimes wondered to myself if there's some relationship between the diatom blooms and heterotrophic bacteria populations maturing. They seem to pop up in young tanks and go away on their own some weeks later. The official party line on the matter is that they're feeding of leached silicates from new substrates, but the more one explores that, the less true it seems. It's a curiosity, but I'm not sure that we can necessarily get to the bottom it easily.





I think that's the hardest part for most people who are fishless cycling. Many people start an aquarium with enthusiasm to get fish, and then end up staring at an empty tank for two months, which kills the excitement. This probably adds to the problem of overtesting to the point that people find problems where there aren't any. Fish-in cycling might be better for some people, depending on their temperament and patience.







I think those are in there. I know temp and baking soda are at the very least.

The point you make about the bacteria being cultured therefore has been given relevant nutrients is a good one and one that eluded me. Are there any commercial products such as plant fertiliser that could provided these to our bacteria?

The point about the backlog of nitrites was something I believed to be true before I had conducted any research.

 

[Caliban07]

Btw how do you split previous posts up so you can edit in between the lines like you guys do?

 

[threnjen]

on my phone and I have less patience forposts this way so it will be brief

Aqua Chem, they one paper you should read is by Tim Havonec et all 98 about nitrospira. It claims that in aquaria we grow nitrospira not nitrobacter and several studies since have supported this. It also studies the life of the cycle and specifically used aquariums in its lab work, not wastewater treatment systems. It was a pretty revolutionary paper and quite relevant to our current discussion.

I already can't remember what else I wanted to say and can't scroll up and look with my phone so that's all for now

 

[aqua_chem]

The point you make about the bacteria being cultured therefore has been given relevant nutrients is a good one and one that eluded me. Are there any commercial products such as plant fertiliser that could provided these to our bacteria?

Plant fertilizers should do the trick for the most part, although many of them are lacking macronutrients, particularly phosphate. They are meant to be used in an aquarium with fish, where the fish waste supplies copious phosphorus and nitrogen, but inadequate potassium and micronutrients. We add nitrogen in the form of ammonia, but no phosphate.

If I were to mark a system for fishless cycling, I would probably advise to use plant fertilizer initially (per directions if you have plants) and find a source of phosphate. Old watechange water works, as do many terrestrial fertilizers. If this doesn't work, you can purchase Fleet Enema (exactly what it sounds like) from CVS/Walgreens, which is a source of pure sodium phosphate. Baking soda for bicarbonate if needed, ie, soft or unknown water hardness. Add ingredients, turn temp to 80F, and just forget about it for 6 weeks.



To divide up quotes, you can put in a quote tab. Put [/ quote] (no space) to close a quote and add something, and [ quote] to open it again.

 

[Caliban07]

Plant fertilizers should do the trick for the most part, although many of them are lacking macronutrients, particularly phosphate. They are meant to be used in an aquarium with fish, where the fish waste supplies copious phosphorus and nitrogen, but inadequate potassium and micronutrients. We add nitrogen in the form of ammonia, but no phosphate.

If I were to mark a system for fishless cycling, I would probably advise to use plant fertilizer initially (per directions if you have plants) and find a source of phosphate. Old watechange water works, as do many terrestrial fertilizers. If this doesn't work, you can purchase Fleet Enema (exactly what it sounds like) from CVS/Walgreens, which is a source of pure sodium phosphate. Baking soda for bicarbonate if needed, ie, soft or unknown water hardness. Add ingredients, turn temp to 80F, and just forget about it for 6 weeks.



To divide up quotes, you can put in a quote tab. Put [/ quote] (no space) to close a quote and add something, and [ quote] to open it again.

I heard adding fish food helps with phosphate?

Well these are conditions we are working towards however, ammonia dosing, frequency of dosing, time of cycle and whether water changes are necessary. It would seem that a water change plan would be beneficial but not for the reasons people might be thinking.

However, If we could add something that means we can just forget about it then this may be better. Or if we can help people understand the importance of macronutrients and other nutrients they can at least choose whether or Not to add these at the start or do a water change, since this would be less cost.

Just look at the getting started page in freshwater. There are 6 threads in a row that are struggling with this fishless cycle. It needs addressing.

 

[aqua_chem]

Aqua Chem, they one paper you should read is by Tim Havonec et all 98 about nitrospira. It claims that in aquaria we grow nitrospira not nitrobacter and several studies since have supported this. It also studies the life of the cycle and specifically used aquariums in its lab work, not wastewater treatment systems. It was a pretty revolutionary paper and quite relevant to our current discussion.

Yes, you're right. I should have said nitrospira, not nitrobacter. The halflife is about the same though for the temperature he use.