Fishless or Fish In Cycling

[ericwithac]

So I have done a ton of research on both of these ways of cycling.

Even after all this research Im still wondering which is best and which takes the longest.

I know for the fish, fishless cycling is the best, but Ive read some places that fishless cycling can take months to complete. On the other hand, ive read that fish in cycling can take months to complete.

I guess im trying to figure out which will take less time. I would appreciate any advice!

THanks!

 

[fort384]

I have always preferred fish in cycling when it comes to FW tanks. So long as you are willing to do daily water changes, and stock slowly, it works fine and doesn't stress out your fish. Good article on it here:
Fish-in Cycling: Step over into the dark side - Aquarium Advice

Have never had it take more than a 7-10 days to fish in cycle a tank. I have cycled a lot of tanks.

 

[Hholly]

If you can get seed material from an established tank both ways go faster.

 

[fort384]

That is a really good call, as well. If you have a trusted tank that you can get a scoop of gravel or some filter media from, it will speed the cycle to even a couple of days.

 

[ericwithac]

Thanks to you both! Fort - Ive read that article many times but thanks!
Hholly - I have a friend with a 37g FW tank that I will be taking a filter pad from!

Thanks Guys!

 

[NigelK8485]

I prefer fishless just because you can control the amount of ammonia that your bacteria can accomodate. Like for me, I would dose up to 4 ppm. After three weeks my 150 was cycled and I could have thrown in my entire stock without worrying if the bacteria was sufficient. With fish in cycling you're only building up enough bacteria to handle those fish's bio loads and you have to slowly introduce stock over a period of time. Plus, you're not having to waste a ton of water by doing water changes all the time, and I just feel bad for exposing fish to the ammonia and nitrite. While large frequent water changes can prevent the death of the fish, any readable amount is stressful to the fish.

But yes, adding seeding material is one of the quickest ways.

Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

 

[fort384]

You're welcome, good luck with the tank.

Good to see another pilot on the forum!

 

[Hholly]

Good luck! You'll do fine whichever way you go.

 

[ericwithac]

You're welcome, good luck with the tank.

Good to see another pilot on the forum!

yes! thats awesome! what do you fly and where?

 

[fort384]

Most of my time is in high wing single engines but a little multi time and low wing time. Northern Illinois mostly and just for fun. The $300 hamburger gig. You?

 

[ericwithac]

Most of my time is in high wing single engines but a little multi time and low wing time. Northern Illinois mostly and just for fun. The $300 hamburger gig. You?

I own a 78 Piper Arrow and I fly all around the Northeast as I am an aircraft broker. Speaking of the $300 hamburger run checkout my website AviationCuisine!

 

[jetajockey]

I prefer fishless just because you can control the amount of ammonia that your bacteria can accomodate. Like for me, I would dose up to 4 ppm. After three weeks my 150 was cycled and I could have thrown in my entire stock without worrying if the bacteria was sufficient. With fish in cycling you're only building up enough bacteria to handle those fish's bio loads and you have to slowly introduce stock over a period of time. Plus, you're not having to waste a ton of water by doing water changes all the time, and I just feel bad for exposing fish to the ammonia and nitrite. While large frequent water changes can prevent the death of the fish, any readable amount is stressful to the fish.

But yes, adding seeding material is one of the quickest ways.

Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

The only issue with that is the biofilter will adjust based on the load, so even if it's built to handle 4ppm a day, it's going to gradually decline if the fish are only producing 2ppm, for example.


And no, just because an amount is 'readable' by a test kit does not mean it's stressful to fish. There are plenty of papers on the subject that give us enough data to make some basic generalizations of ammonia toxicity levels relative to pH and temperature.

And a miniscule amount of salt inhibits nitrite poisoning if nitrite were to become an issue.

So there's nothing to feel bad about if you have a good grasp on what's going on in the tank and know what steps to take to remedy potential issues.

 

[jetajockey]

I own a 78 Piper Arrow and I fly all around the Northeast as I am an aircraft broker. Speaking of the $300 hamburger run checkout my website AviationCuisine!

My real job is line service at an fbo.

And you can do fish-in just be well prepared before doing so.

 

[NigelK8485]

The only issue with that is the biofilter will adjust based on the load, so even if it's built to handle 4ppm a day, it's going to gradually decline if the fish are only producing 2ppm, for example.





And no, just because an amount is 'readable' by a test kit does not mean it's stressful to fish. There are plenty of papers on the subject that give us enough data to make some basic generalizations of ammonia toxicity levels relative to pH and temperature.



And a miniscule amount of salt inhibits nitrite poisoning if nitrite were to become an issue.



So there's nothing to feel bad about if you have a good grasp on what's going on in the tank and know what steps to take to remedy potential issues.

Right but if your whole stock is producing 2ppm of ammonia yet the fish you're cycling with are producing .25ppm, you'll need to slowly add fish to accommodate. Whereas if you're already processing 4ppm and add your whole stock and they produce 2ppm, it'll adjust for the lower amount.

Where are the papers? Everything I've read states .25% of ammonia is toxic to fish.

I guess I just don't understand why you would want to potentially harm the fish and go through the extra work and water when you could just as easily do it without the fish. It's all personal preference, I understand that. I just don't understand why someone would prefer the fish in method.


Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

 

[ericwithac]

My real job is line service at an fbo.

And you can do fish-in just be well prepared before doing so.

Which FBO? Message me, we have a referral agent program through our aircraft brokerage firm, if you know of people who are looking to buy/sell/finance or re-finance, we would love to have you on board and pay you for your referrals

 

[jetajockey]

Right but if your whole stock is producing 2ppm of ammonia yet the fish you're cycling with are producing .25ppm, you'll need to slowly add fish to accommodate. Whereas if you're already processing 4ppm and add your whole stock and they produce 2ppm, it'll adjust for the lower amount.

Where are the papers? Everything I've read states .25% of ammonia is toxic to fish.

I guess I just don't understand why you would want to potentially harm the fish and go through the extra work and water when you could just as easily do it without the fish. It's all personal preference, I understand that. I just don't understand why someone would prefer the fish in method.


Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

That's correct, fishless cycling has the benefit of adding all of your fish at one time. But most people don't do this, they usually stock their tank gradually over the course of weeks/months.

The reason why a lot of people choose to do fish in is because if you do it well using plants, seeded media, and a modest fish load, it's not any more work than fishless cycling is.

Just do a google on ammonia toxicity and TAN. Toxicity is highly dependent on pH and temperature. The people that claim that a set # (like .25ppm) is a static toxic level are just regurgitating unfounded claims.

 

[NigelK8485]

That's correct, fishless cycling has the benefit of adding all of your fish at one time. But most people don't do this, they usually stock their tank gradually over the course of weeks/months.



The reason why a lot of people choose to do fish in is because if you do it well using plants, seeded media, and a modest fish load, it's not any more work than fishless cycling is.



Just do a google on ammonia toxicity and TAN. Toxicity is highly dependent on pH and temperature. The people that claim that a set # (like .25ppm) is a static toxic level are just regurgitating unfounded claims.

Okay. So this website states that while toxicity increases as pH and temperature decrease, different fish can handle different amounts of ammonia exposure. Anywhere from .2 ppm (or mg/L like they use) to 2.0 ppm. So I'm sure that's where the .25 ppm number comes from, people being on the safe side. It also goes on to say that in young salmon, six weeks of constant exposure as little as .002 ppm of ammonia resulted in signs of hyperplasia of the gill linings and led to bacterial gill diseases.
http://www.water-research.net/index.php/ammonia-in-groundwater-runoff-and-streams


So I get that temperature and pH can affect the toxicity of ammonia, but that doesn't mean it isn't toxic. It just can become more toxic or less toxic. Also, when I cycle my tanks the pH fluctuates drastically when the nitrites start becoming nitrates. I would go from 7.8 to 6.4 within 24 hours of adding new water. Does fish in cycling do something to make these pH fluctuations not happen? Seems like that would be extremely stressful on the fish and if the decreasing pH increases ammonia toxicity it just seems like a recipe for disaster. I'm not being a smartass by asking this, I'm genuinely curious. If I tried to maintain my pH to a constant level during my cycle I would have ended up doing like three large water changes a day to keep it from being a huge swing.



Sent from my iPad using Aquarium Advice

 

[Delapool]

The ph - ammonia - temp tables all represent averages. Your fish from the same species may be fine or they may not be (at where ammonia should cause an issue). Just depends which side of the curve they are on.

 

[Mebbid]

Nigel - that website is wrong.

At higher temperature and ph the toxicity increases. That website has it backwards. With that in mind, we can't take anything stated there seriously.


http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/pH-Ammonia.htm

As for which one is best, whichever one will be done properly. Taking me for example, I'm a ridiculously busy college student that doesn't have time for daily water changes. Fish in cycling is a bad idea for me.

For someone that's impatient and has the time then a fish in cycle is a great idea.

 

[Delapool]

The main problem is that a fish-in cycle isn't as safe as fish-less. Relative safeness here.

Can fish-in be done safely. Absolutely! Anyone with experience can do it although probably the first thing they will do is pinch media from one of the 20 zillion tanks they already have going.

The problem is if you get a sick fish in a tank that is cycling. Now playing devils advocate, one could say 'who cares, throw it out'. The problem is that a bacterial infection might stick around in an empty tank for a month.

And that for me is the crux of it. Fish-in can be done safely, well and it will be darn sight more exciting than staring at an empty tank. And if it goes well, all is good.

If it goes pear-shaped, then there is a reason the first question asked is what is your water chemistry.

So imo I think aquarium experience plays a part. I can think of numerous people on this forum that could do a fish-in cycle in their sleep (and given some of the hours of the posts, I wonder if they are). On the other hand, an ammonia reading that should be fine in a mature tank (eg ferts overdose but dosing with prime and testing just in case) may be additional stress for new, young display fish they don't really need.

My two cents (now down to 1.5 cents with the Aussie dollar) on an interesting topic.

Edit - so what I'm trying to say, it shouldn't be a question of less time or which is better. You should pick the method that you can do that will be safe for your fish.