docrak said:
Some people recommend water changes to lower your values but I believe water changes during a cycle will only make it take longer.
Sorry for this tangent, but I just have ask this question and it's related to the OP, some what. :? (or should this be a seperate thread?)
Why would it take longer to cycle? I don't understand the reasoning behind this. (please enlighten me, because I can't seem to get this idea. Maybe it's because I just got off a 12 hour shift and my mind is not working.)
We all know that the bacteria resides on tank equipment(mostly the filter) and the tank itself and very little in the water column, correct? (unless you have a bacteria bloom) I would think that in a cycling tank, more bacteria would be in the water column then an established tank, but the amount would still be small, so the loss would be minimal. (at most, with this idea, it would only take an extra day or two as compared to not doing a PWC)
If my NH3 was 1.0 PPM and I did a 50% PWC and lowered that value to .5 PPM, how would that slow down the cycle? There is still NH3 available to the bacteria. It's not like the bacteria will reproduce any faster with a higher level of NH3, they have a fixed multiplication rate. If there is food available the bacteria will grow. If the NH3 level was 1.0 PPM or 10.0 PPM the bacteria will still multiply at a set rate or am I missing something?
I can understand if the NH3 level was 0 and if you performed a PWC that it would remove food from the current level of bacteria, but in this case you have ample food for the bacteria.
When you preform a PWC you are adding a lot of O2, which is good for the bacteria.
I have no supporting data for either doing a PWC or not doing a PWC, just people saying that it is not a good idea to do so.
(sorry for rambling on, I need to get some sleep.) Hopefully this comes across as a question, as it is, and not trying to pick a fight.