Post your test data

[Caliban07]

Aha!! Thanks, I did not know this. Why on earth is my city using such an antiquated phrasing? Or is this standard. Not that it matters.



I think we want to keep all parameters equal and simply study the effect of different tap water sources on the length of the cycle.

As a control test, I'm also going to perform two cycles using RO water + phosphorous and RO water + Equilibrium.

The question we want to answer, which needs to be phrased better, is how important is the source water itself to the cycle?
I'm hoping we'll be able to obtain water quality reports from all participants.

So in the end we're basically (almost) just going to have people cycle as usual, except with a more strict and rigid dosing/parameters plan than they might normally use, with very clear instructions.

I think you'd be better having one bucket just phosphate and one bucket equilibrium and phosphate. If they both cycle equally then we can assume phosphate is the key. If not then we know equilibrium is important.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[Caliban07]

Ok my water is actually very soft also. Made a mistake. Im just thinking. Most people who have stalled lately have had quite normal ph.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[threnjen]

I think you'd be better having one bucket just phosphate and one bucket equilibrium and phosphate. If they both cycle equally then we can assume phosphate is the key. If not then we know equilibrium is important.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

yes sorry, just a mis type on my part. Both with phosphors

 

[Caliban07]

Questions for molliwop

I know you have been doing fishless for ever I guess and you claim you have never had any problems so we would like to ask you some questions.

Are you aware of the forums fishless cycle instructions and did/do you use them to cycle? If not what are is your method? Please consider these questions

If you followed the instructions but changed parts what did you change?

Do you have soft or hard water?

How long does your average cycle take?

How often do you test your water?

How often do you dose ammonia?

Do you change water? If so what is the reason for this?

Do you add anything other than ammonia to the cycle?

Do you have any specific enviromental preferneces such as temp, lighting?

How do you aerate the water?

Any other questions please add.

Thanks Molli

Sent from my SM-T210 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[aqua_chem]

I think we want to keep all parameters equal and simply study the effect of different tap water sources on the length of the cycle.

As a control test, I'm also going to perform two cycles using RO water + phosphorous and RO water + Equilibrium.

The question we want to answer, which needs to be phrased better, is how important is the source water itself to the cycle?
I'm hoping we'll be able to obtain water quality reports from all participants.

So in the end we're basically (almost) just going to have people cycle as usual, except with a more strict and rigid dosing/parameters plan than they might normally use, with very clear instructions.

I don't know if I'm just being daft, but I'm still not clear what your independent variable is here. Source water isn't a variable per se. What I'm looking for is a quantifiable (or qualifiable) variable that will be manipulated, eg, low pH vs high pH, high mineral content vs low (as defined by dGH), phosphate rich vs phosphate poor, etc.

You second problem will be controlling the other variables. If you have someone who has 'hard water' (high pH, high KH, high GH) and try to compare it to someone who has 'soft water' (low/neutral pH, low KH, low GH), you can't really draw any conclusions. If the hard water case cycled faster (or didn't stall), then do you attribute it to pH? GH? Unfortunately, the two are usually cofounded pretty heavily in tap water.

 

[threnjen]

I don't know if I'm just being daft, but I'm still not clear what your independent variable is here. Source water isn't a variable per se. What I'm looking for is a quantifiable (or qualifiable) variable that will be manipulated, eg, low pH vs high pH, high mineral content vs low (as defined by dGH), phosphate rich vs phosphate poor, etc.

You second problem will be controlling the other variables. If you have someone who has 'hard water' (high pH, high KH, high GH) and try to compare it to someone who has 'soft water' (low/neutral pH, low KH, low GH), you can't really draw any conclusions. If the hard water case cycled faster (or didn't stall), then do you attribute it to pH? GH? Unfortunately, the two are usually cofounded pretty heavily in tap water.

I don't know. What do you suggest then?
I think you think we're trying to get more out of it than we expect to. It's not all that scientific of an experiment. I agree that differences in tap water we wouldn't be able to attribute it to much specific, but at least we could blame differences in tap water.
We're hoping to make phosphorus and pH a controlled constraint rather than a variable. If we enforce the use of baking soda then it will become a further controlled constraint as that will raise everyone's pH and .. gH is it that it also raises?
I think that is reducing some variables, is it not?

 

[Caliban07]

I don't know if I'm just being daft, but I'm still not clear what your independent variable is here. Source water isn't a variable per se. What I'm looking for is a quantifiable (or qualifiable) variable that will be manipulated, eg, low pH vs high pH, high mineral content vs low (as defined by dGH), phosphate rich vs phosphate poor, etc.



You second problem will be controlling the other variables. If you have someone who has 'hard water' (high pH, high KH, high GH) and try to compare it to someone who has 'soft water' (low/neutral pH, low KH, low GH), you can't really draw any conclusions. If the hard water case cycled faster (or didn't stall), then do you attribute it to pH? GH? Unfortunately, the two are usually cofounded pretty heavily in tap water.

What's wrong with running experiments between people with soft water vs hard water? If there is an obvious difference in cycling outcome then we go on to it further to investigate why. If we run hard vs soft and there is no obvious difference then there is less of a need go into water types etc.

 

[jetajockey]

Another thing to consider. The 4ppm ammonia dosing recommendation is also based on the idea that the average full fish load produces near that amount on a daily basis. Or that it's 'creating a strong biofilter', which makes no sense since the bacteria colony is dynamic and grows/shrinks according to it's available resources and situation.

As far as I can tell, the 4ppm thing is complete speculation. I believe that they produce much less than this on average, but I've only tested it a few times on a whim when setting up a completely new tank. It'd be a pretty easy thing to test, though, if you had the patience for it.

 

[threnjen]

I wanted to throw something back out there about water changes (I KNOW I am so annoying about this! I can't help myself)
But if we let people do water changes then we can't disprove (OR PROVE, OK) that high nitrites stall the cycle

P.S. caliban your box is full, try harder

 

[threnjen]

Another thing to consider. The 4ppm ammonia dosing recommendation is also based on the idea that the average full fish load produces near that amount on a daily basis. Or that it's 'creating a strong biofilter', which makes no sense since the bacteria colony is dynamic and grows/shrinks according to it's available resources and situation.

As far as I can tell, the 4ppm thing is complete speculation. I believe that they produce much less than this on average, but I've only tested it a few times on a whim when setting up a completely new tank. It'd be a pretty easy thing to test, though, if you had the patience for it.

We want to go a smidge higher because we want to dispel the oft-held notion that high ammonia or nitrites will stall the cycle.

Or maybe we'll prove that science was wrong (or too perfect) and in our circumstances it does (I don't know why that would be, I just want to sound unbiased)

 

[jetajockey]

We want to go a smidge higher because we want to dispel the oft-held notion that high ammonia or nitrites will stall the cycle.

Or maybe we'll prove that science was wrong (or too perfect) and in our circumstances it does (I don't know why that would be, I just want to sound unbiased)

I would think that citing various studies showing nh3 toxicity in nitrifying bacteria would be enough, but I get why you would want to pick a different ppm to work with, it would stimulate that exact conversation to occur.

 

[Caliban07]

Another thing to consider. The 4ppm ammonia dosing recommendation is also based on the idea that the average full fish load produces near that amount on a daily basis. Or that it's 'creating a strong biofilter', which makes no sense since the bacteria colony is dynamic and grows/shrinks according to it's available resources and situation.

As far as I can tell, the 4ppm thing is complete speculation. I believe that they produce much less than this on average, but I've only tested it a few times on a whim when setting up a completely new tank. It'd be a pretty easy thing to test, though, if you had the patience for it.

I think there are many calculations that can be done to calculate this but there are variables to consider quantity of feeding, fish weight etc. I was under the impression 4ppm was overkill and that why we build a colony capable of tackling that amount?

 

[Caliban07]

I wanted to throw something back out there about water changes (I KNOW I am so annoying about this! I can't help myself)
But if we let people do water changes then we can't disprove (OR PROVE, OK) that high nitrites stall the cycle

P.S. caliban your box is full, try harder

Ok BUT we know this doesn't happen in aquaria right? With the volumes that we use. We are now talking about tap water and nutrients right? Although the more I look In to this the more I can't see this causing problems either. It doesn't make sense that people with relatively normal pH and thus Gh and kh are reporting problems. What I have seen these past few newbie problem posts is just a lot of impatience.

 

[threnjen]

I read over some studies again and the ones that are growing bacteria in a lab rather than directly in the aquarium grow them in a phosphorus buffered solution. I wasn't clear if there is anything else in the solution besides phosphorous. We may get lucky and find that "other stuff" is irrelevant.

I have a question for how I can do the tests on the distilled water tanks. We assume that we get our initial AOB colony from the "leftovers" that are not killed in the tap water. I won't have that. How do I get a tiny bit of AOB over there without compromising the test?

Other notes. Remember the bucket I mentioned a few days ago and that I split it up. The sponge filter and driftwood left the bucket and moved to a tank. The bucket retained a HOB. I did a 100% water change on the bucket when I made these changes and dosed new ammonia, which cleared to nitrIte. So what you say - well the interesting part is I checked pH today and some time in the last 54 hours there was a complete and total pH crash. 6.0 or lower. I think pH crash is a huge risk with soft water and something that needs to be emphasized more strongly.

As to the experiment, I think we need to establish our parameters and hand them out. I am sure we have lost one or two people by now.
So water change : sounds like that's still a yes. OK

We can get started at least on the initial instructions. So we want them to dose to 5ppm and maintain 5ppm until they see nitrates, then drop to 2ppm daily?
Initial addition of pinch flake food
Maintain pH above 7.0 at all times (or do we request 7.5 via baking soda?)
no lights, if possible
HOB preferred for consistency? if possible?

 

[threnjen]

Also found a new paper
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ce432/WET-Keys%20to%20Better%20Nitrification.pdf
study on some wastewater plants where the cycle locked in the nitrite phase.

"nitrite lock" seems to be a key phrase in this paper, I will research this keyword further to see if I can unearth more data.

 

[jetajockey]

You will also get bacteria through the air.

I've always been under the impression that the pH crash in softer water tanks during fishless cycling is often directly linked to the bacteria. Wouldn't be too hard to do a side by side test to verify it, but I always considered it a given (even though it may not be).

I came to this conclusion after seeing several people who had to use crushed coral/baking soda or water changes to raise pH during fishless cycling but then when the tank was established they never made any effort to raise the hardness. This also helps my theory that the 4ppm dosing regimen is a lot higher than what the average tank stock actually produces.

 

[threnjen]

You will also get bacteria through the air.

I've always been under the impression that the pH crash in softer water tanks during fishless cycling is often directly linked to the bacteria. Wouldn't be too hard to do a side by side test to verify it, but I always considered it a given (even though it may not be).

I came to this conclusion after seeing several people who had to use crushed coral/baking soda or water changes to raise pH during fishless cycling but then when the tank was established they never made any effort to raise the hardness. This also helps my theory that the 4ppm dosing regimen is a lot higher than what the average tank stock actually produces.

Yes, the AOB specifically eat alkalinity. I don't have the number in front of me but there is a specific and known level of alkalinity eaten as part of their chemical equation. They literally eat down the pH and that's a part of the process.
I more wonder more why some people's pH does NOT crash.
I assume that it's the kH that will prevent a pH crash, but as I have no kH nothing protects me.
I just think we need to stress pH testing more often with the newbies.

Do you think nitrifying bacteria live in the air? Maybe I just need to research this.

 

[threnjen]

For each mg of NH4 oxidized to NO3, 7.14mg/L alkalinity is consumed

I wasn't surprised per se that this happened in my bucket, but I was surprised it happened after a 100% water change the other day.
I expect my cycles to stall because of my water via a pH crash

 

[Caliban07]

For each mg of NH4 oxidized to NO3, 7.14mg/L alkalinity is consumed

I wasn't surprised per se that this happened in my bucket, but I was surprised it happened after a 100% water change the other day.
I expect my cycles to stall because of my water via a pH crash

I was also under the impression that as well as consuming alkalinity, acidity was produced by the bacteria during the breakdown if ammonia. I need to find this also. That would be doubly important if this was the case. What surprises me though is that people with relatively normal ph struggle. Jen can you find the paper that gives average times for ammonia levels to decrease and nitrites to appear then decrease? I can't find it anywhere but I also think a lot of people are expecting nitrites to drop sooner.

 

[Caliban07]

You will also get bacteria through the air.

I've always been under the impression that the pH crash in softer water tanks during fishless cycling is often directly linked to the bacteria. Wouldn't be too hard to do a side by side test to verify it, but I always considered it a given (even though it may not be).

I came to this conclusion after seeing several people who had to use crushed coral/baking soda or water changes to raise pH during fishless cycling but then when the tank was established they never made any effort to raise the hardness. This also helps my theory that the 4ppm dosing regimen is a lot higher than what the average tank stock actually produces.

I also think 4ppm more than fish produce.