Water Changes During Fish In Cycle?

[BBradbury]

Fish In Tank Cycling

Part of the problem with this type of cycling is this, the wrong fish is used. There are specific species that work very well, because they'll tolerate less then stable water conditions for the short time it takes to cycle the tank. Guppies worked well for me, females are especially hardy and routinely drop fry as soon as the water chemistry is steady. I used 8 supposedly frail and unhealthy "feeder" female Guppies and all 8 survived. Even feeders can be nursed back to good health in the right water conditions. Other good choices are Rasboras, White Clouds and Platys. Zebra Danios are excellent, if you don't mind keeping the tank water a bit cooler. There are also several species of Barbs that I understand will tolerate the nitrogen cycle. I believe Tigers are one. Though they're a bit aggressive for my tastes.

B

 

[PerfectDepth]

I just view fishin as selfish with lack of real empathy for the fish.

I hope you've never added a new fish to an established tank. *gasp* ammonia!

 

[DragonFish71]

Part of the problem with this type of cycling is this, the wrong fish is used. There are specific species that work very well, because they'll tolerate less then stable water conditions for the short time it takes to cycle the tank. Guppies worked well for me, females are especially hardy and routinely drop fry as soon as the water chemistry is steady. I used 8 supposedly frail and unhealthy "feeder" female Guppies and all 8 survived. Even feeders can be nursed back to good health in the right water conditions. Other good choices are Rasboras, White Clouds and Platys. Zebra Danios are excellent, if you don't mind keeping the tank water a bit cooler. There are also several species of Barbs that I understand will tolerate the nitrogen cycle. I believe Tigers are one. Though they're a bit aggressive for my tastes.

B

Giant danios are good as well. Just be sure to have a place to re-home them if they aren't going to be part of your final stock. Same with some of the larger rainbows. Luckily I have larger tanks to move them to after I finish a cycle.

Well, before hubby put the foot down on no more tanks *grumbles*

 

[jetajockey]

I dont mean to go on but it is less effective and why cant effectiveness and fairness be linked in some sort of way. If i had my way fishin cycling would be eliminated from the face of fish keeping period but unfortunately i dont.

That's good, just because you can't do it humanely doesn't mean that others cannot either.

All we seem to do is take for ourselves and need to start giving back when we can.

you mean like keeping fish in tanks as pets?

And we can with such a task as simple as fishless cycling to prevent suffering, its certainly no inconvenience and only positive things come from it.

Because if you do it right, fish-in cycling does not cause suffering either. So why would a person want to sit and stare at an empty tank for weeks if they know how to safely add fish right away? There's nothing selfish about that at all.

Why would i listen to people saying it can be done fairly, how can it?

Because you might learn something and expand your understanding of the process. Knowledge is power.

If ammonia has the power to KILL in small amounts how dreadful an experience must it be at any level. And the biggest point is that its completely avoidable.

Many chemicals have the power to kill in small amounts.

It's not a 'dreadful experience' to experience very low levels of certain toxic substances. We do it all the time.

There's a reason why biologists have collected data and performed studies to understand ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and a myriad of other chemical toxicities in animals. In this data, they figure out at what point the creatures begin to show stress and damage.

So the point is that low amounts of nitrogenous waste do not necessarily make the fish feel like poo.

 

[HN1]

Part of the problem with this type of cycling is this, the wrong fish is used. There are specific species that work very well, because they'll tolerate less then stable water conditions for the short time it takes to cycle the tank. Guppies worked well for me, females are especially hardy and routinely drop fry as soon as the water chemistry is steady. I used 8 supposedly frail and unhealthy "feeder" female Guppies and all 8 survived. Even feeders can be nursed back to good health in the right water conditions. Other good choices are Rasboras, White Clouds and Platys. Zebra Danios are excellent, if you don't mind keeping the tank water a bit cooler. There are also several species of Barbs that I understand will tolerate the nitrogen cycle. I believe Tigers are one. Though they're a bit aggressive for my tastes.

B

I've fish in cycled a myriad of species. Their hardiness really doesn't matter for a well planned and executed "quick cycle" with cycled media. I do think the "hardier" fish provide some room for error. My hang up with recommending specific fish to cycle with is that it can sometimes be difficult to get rid of the fish and they may not be suitable long term for the tank. People get attached to fish sometimes too.

 

[molliwopp]

I hope you've never added a new fish to an established tank. *gasp* ammonia!

Can i ask what you mean by this? Adding afew fish to an established tank and fishless cycling are poles apart.

In all my previous posts i am simply trying to translate that a fishless cycle is an easy task which is without arguement a safer way to do it than a fish in, just puzzles me sometimes. Why not do it just to avoid the possibility of over exposure. Obviously my views and those of others are conflicting. Im sure that experienced keepers have done hundreds of fishin cycles and has had little to no problems with it. I just dont think it gets enough credit because the fishless cycle is idealic in my eyes. Do i think theres a place for fishin, yes, if taking large orders of different fish or you have a fishroom where cycling and testing individual tanks is expensive and unproductive, where its easier for the keeper to just put the fish into tanks and keep up on the water changes, if youre changes are frequent and large enough i imagine youd also be testing the water less frequently. Besides that, fishless should hold poll position if taking pros/cons into perspective. Its quicker, safer, easier and can be cycled to a custom bioload.

 

[aqua_chem]

You say 'its not bad for fish at all' but it is bad, its horrible horrible stuff even in low amounts which would certainly make them feel like pooo. Also theres a little imbalance in chemistry during a cycle which could also cause stress.

Your view of the toxicity of ammonia makes it out to be much worse than what it. I think most guides use the EPA's (or some other regulatory agency's) numbers for 'acceptable and safe' ammonia levels, and they are extremely conservative. The actual toxicities in the literature are significantly higher, often by an order of magnitude or more. The levels that an educated aquarist will subject their fish to in a fish-in cycle are very reasonable from a fish-health perspective.



A fish-in cycle is only really dangerous in the hands on an unalert, unknowledgable aquarist.

 

[molliwopp]

A fish-in cycle is only really dangerous in the hands on an unalert, unknowledgable aquarist.

Absolutely, i agree. A friend of mine to this day doesnt understand the nitrogen cycle and wont listen to an explaination. His view of starting a tank is packing it with fish and expecting to loose half of the stock while doing weekly changes. 7-8months ago he bought 30 5inch koi carp for his pond. Put them all in a 55 to grow them for summer. It was quite painful to see i seriously just wanted to slap him and do a water change as the suffering was distressing me. He wouldnt listen to reason so obviously we argued constantly and to this day it annoys me to talk about fish with him. I guess im passionate about fishless because ive seen possible disasters and suffering it can create.

 

[molliwopp]

That's good, just because you can't do it humanely doesn't mean that others cannot either.

you mean like keeping fish in tanks as pets?

Because if you do it right, fish-in cycling does not cause suffering either. So why would a person want to sit and stare at an empty tank for weeks if they know how to safely add fish right away? There's nothing selfish about that at all.
Because you might learn something and expand your understanding of the process. Knowledge is power.

Many chemicals have the power to kill in small amounts.

It's not a 'dreadful experience' to experience very low levels of certain toxic substances. We do it all the time.

There's a reason why biologists have collected data and performed studies to understand ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and a myriad of other chemical toxicities in animals. In this data, they figure out at what point the creatures begin to show stress and damage.

So the point is that low amounts of nitrogenous waste do not necessarily make the fish feel like poo.

If i cared that much i wouldnt keep them in tanks at all, thats true and ive said that before.

Just because i cant do it humanly..? Maybe ill learn something. Dont pass judgement on my keeping because you have 0 idea what im about as i go the extra mile. My fish have a better life than i do BAR none. Every single tank i have is understocked, species only and gets every second day 30% aged changes with my tap waters ph and hardness matching their natural habitat. Currently setting up another peacock species tank and the same strict routine will continue.

Regardless, the fishin cycle probably accounts to more fish deaths than anything else in the hobby when in the wrong hands. Not everyone is as diligent as me.



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[jetajockey]

Just because i cant do it humanly..? Maybe ill learn something. Dont pass judgement on my keeping because you have 0 idea what im about as i go the extra mile.

I made that statement based completely on what you've said in this thread. Between saying that fishless is the 'right' thing to do, to wishing that fish-in cycling would be eliminated from the hobby, you've made your position pretty clear. I don't know you personally.

I'm glad you go the extra mile, but there's no need to denigrate a method that other people use because you choose not to. And as has been mentioned time and again, it's perfectly fine and safe for the fish if you do it correctly, whether you agree with it or not. So taking a sort of moral highground by choosing fishless cycling is a flawed concept based on ignorance, willful or otherwise.

My fish have a better life than i do BAR none. Every single tank i have is understocked, species only and gets every second day 30% aged changes with my tap waters ph and hardness matching their natural habitat. Currently setting up another peacock species tank and the same strict routine will continue.

That's great, I wish more people would take it as seriously as you do.

Regardless, the fishin cycle probably accounts to more fish deaths than anything else in the hobby when in the wrong hands. Not everyone is as diligent as me.

Possibly, although I would argue that the bigger issue is uninformed fishkeepers. Because those same people who kill their fish during the cycle eventually establish their tank and send even more fish to their doom every few weeks/months/years through bad husbandry practices.

 

[aqua_chem]

Regardless, the fishin cycle probably accounts to more fish deaths than anything else in the hobby when in the wrong hands. Not everyone is as diligent as me.

I really thing that fish-in cycling like the OP is doing it, ie monitoring nitrogenous waste levels and waterchanging before they get too high, shouldn't be in the same category as people 'blind cycling' their tank as you've described. It seems very reductionist to simplify it that way.

 

[PerfectDepth]

Can i ask what you mean by this? Adding a few fish to an established tank and fishless cycling are poles apart.

Do you mean fish-in cycling? They are not different when done properly. The only reason I would ever do a fishless cycle is if I was starting a small tank, 10 gallons or smaller, from scratch with no seeded media. Otherwise, it's easy enough to keep ammonia and nitrites under control.

Just as you should never add too many new fish at once to an established tank, you just have to start very slowly when fish-in cycling. I test the water diligently just in case, but also change a lot of water, so I never even see any readable amount of ammonia or nitrite when fish-in cycling. You seem to be convinced that this is automatically worse than a fishless cycle, so I won't try to change your mind.

 

[Delapool]

It's an interesting discussion but at the end of the day a fish less cycle will always be safer - simply has to be because there are no fish.

For a new person I would never recommend fish-in cycle. Open minded of course but this reflects the low level of knowledge I certainly had. For experienced people that's a judgement call and I respect that but first thing I would do is re-seed in the happy event I got another tank (as mentioned above ).

 

[jetajockey]

I don't think it's a question of what is safer. Letting fish stay in the wild is safer, sort of (that's another pot to stir). Again, safety isn't an issue if you know what you are doing, so why even bring it up? It'd be different if this were some really difficult process, but it's really not, and fish-in cycling if done right can be maintained with very minimal work, sometimes less than what people do for fishless cycles. It takes just as much understanding/research to learn how to do a fishless cycle as it does to do a proper fish-in cycle, so what's the difference?

The fact is that most people get into fishkeeping via fish-in cycle, so rather than chastise them on a high horse it's much better to teach them how to manage their issue at hand.

And there aren't many people out there that would choose to stare at an empty tank for a month when they could just as easily be enjoying some fish. Fear goes away with knowledge.

 

[Delapool]

Well it's like common sense, what you and I may think is common sense - others won't. And then adding fish is another variable.

 

[jetajockey]

Perhaps, but people that are taking the time and effort to post here for help are already ahead of the curve. I just think it can be an insult to a person's intelligence to handle them with kid gloves rather than on a case by case basis. Some people don't feel comfortable enough to do a fish-in cycle, or they feel like it's somehow inhumane. More power to them if they feel that way, they are welcome to cycle their tank however they want. There are many more people out there that would rather do a fish-in cycle though, and in many cases the people coming here are already in the middle of one.

I personally don't advise people with the presupposition that they are going to fail. Fish in cycling is not hard at all, even to a complete novice, if they know how to do it correctly.

 

[molliwopp]

I don't think it's a question of what is safer. Letting fish stay in the wild is safer, sort of (that's another pot to stir). Again, safety isn't an issue if you know what you are doing, so why even bring it up? It'd be different if this were some really difficult process, but it's really not, and fish-in cycling if done right can be maintained with very minimal work, sometimes less than what people do for fishless cycles. It takes just as much understanding/research to learn how to do a fishless cycle as it does to do a proper fish-in cycle, so what's the difference?

The fact is that most people get into fishkeeping via fish-in cycle, so rather than chastise them on a high horse it's much better to teach them how to manage their issue at hand.

And there aren't many people out there that would choose to stare at an empty tank for a month when they could just as easily be enjoying some fish. Fear goes away with knowledge.

Ive stated from the beginning that fishin can be done 'safely' in the right hands and by safely i mean without causing death. Leaving fishin cycles to the experienced and recommending a safer alternative to new keepers was another strong point i was pushing along with the simple notion that fishless is a safer method.

See i disagree with almost everything youve said in this post. So where to start..the top.

Keeping fish in a tank is safer but about it being fair is questionable. Of course safer is an issue to be raised when it comes to fishless cycling!? I dont point fingers at individuals and im speaking of the whole shaaabang of recommending a fishin cycle to the inexperienced.

You mention It would be different if it was a complicated task, well that reflects on both forms of cycling a tank. You also say fishless is more work than a fishin which is just ridiculous and completely false as its the other way round with alittle info along the way. Depending on the parameters of the water in question, water changes can be avoided altogether in a fishless cycle where fishin is essential.

You also say that you need the same type of teaching and knowledge to preform a fishin cycle which isnt true either. A fishless cycle actually promotes teaching and knowledge to the person carrying out the task. They learn and understand the chemistry of individual elements in the aquarium and have to to know them to know when the cycle is complete. The fishin doesnt require you to learn a thing as Fishin cycling can be done by simply carring out regular water changes without ever truly understand the simple but imperitive chemistry behind it. And should be pushed to the inexperienced as we know we're actually teaching them something of huge importance because 'fear goes away with knowledge' like you say. Its one of the most simple, basic but most important things to understand in fish keeping period.

I dont have a horse i have sweaty donkey called mugling and he gets grumpy if i climb on him. Seriously though, not everyone pushing fishless has arragance fueling it. Infact i would bet most would say they care more about the fish than the person theyre preaching it to.

Ill touch on one last thing, ''its much better to teach them to manage the issue at hand'' yes jockey, it is and can agree with you here but im also affraid its a reinforcment to my opinions also.

When someone asks about cycling, recommending fishless cycling should come 1st as its simple, takes less effort, less stressful and is important to know. It fills me with a confidence in each person that is willing and takes the time to undertake it, knowing theyll learn something from it. Its an interesting learning curve that anyone who has to ask what or how to cycle a tank should know. Understanding the nitrogen cycle is the back bone of fish keeping and i dont care if this offends, if you dont or cant understand it you shouldnt be keeping. Understand and look after the water and the fish take care of themselves.

I have little against strict fishin cycling only when touted to the inexperienced as it can be a death sentence. That to me is the be all and end all between the 2 forms of cycling because one is forgiving and the other is merciless.



Sent from my GT-N7000 using Aquarium Advice mobile app

 

[aqua_chem]

I would like to know what knowledge a person could glean from fishless cycling that they wouldn't be able to from fish-in cycling. For that matter, I'm wondering what knowledge you think someone will learn from either technique that you wouldn't be able to learn from spending 20 minutes reading the cycling sticky. In fact, I think that fish-in potentially teaches one to better understand ammonia toxicity, whereas fishless cycling teaches one to fear it unquestionably, the opposite of what you said.

Also, what is it about a fish-in cycle that you think makes it so complicated? For one, it's a whole lot more foolproof than fishless cycling is. I'm confident that anyone with a ammonia/nitrite test kit and basic ability to follow directions can perform it with only modest instruction. Heck, you could probably teach a monkey to do it if you were so inclined. I'm not sure what you think separates the experienced aquarist and the amateur that makes them able to fishless cycle w/o complication, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[Delapool]

Yeah but I'd trust the monkey more....

 

[molliwopp]

I would like to know what knowledge a person could glean from fishless cycling that they wouldn't be able to from fish-in cycling. For that matter, I'm wondering what knowledge you think someone will learn from either technique that you wouldn't be able to learn from spending 20 minutes reading the cycling sticky. In fact, I think that fish-in potentially teaches one to better understand ammonia toxicity, whereas fishless cycling teaches one to fear it unquestionably, the opposite of what you said.

Also, what is it about a fish-in cycle that you think makes it so complicated? For one, it's a whole lot more foolproof than fishless cycling is. I'm confident that anyone with a ammonia/nitrite test kit and basic ability to follow directions can perform it with only modest instruction. Heck, you could probably teach a monkey to do it if you were so inclined. I'm not sure what you think separates the experienced aquarist and the amateur that makes them able to fishless cycle w/o complication, but I'm not seeing it.

The nitrogen cycle is play school science and I never ever said it was difficult [Moderator Edit] still doesnt make it any less important.

If ammonia isnt a sustance to fear then i dont really know what is. Ammonia regardless of concentration causes damage, permanent damage with prolonged exposure at even 0.1ppm. 0.15ppm less than a fishless cycle recommendation, now how many amatures keep it below this already harmful level?

A beginners learning from their first fishless cycle is built in as part of the procedure as the basic understanding is needed for the reward and outcome theyre doing it for, where fish can be added. Adding fish and simply doing water changes can be, well simply that, just changing water.

Well im also wondering and struggling to see why you think that i think fishless cycling seperates the experienced and inexperienced keepers either. Youre almost suggesting that im passing it off like its the fountain of all knowledge which is ridiculous to even incinuate it.

What i cant comprehend is how people can defend something thats avoidable and actually nothing but destructive when theres an alternative without the draw backs. So in my eyes, if its good enough for you its good enough for me.





Sent from my GT-N7000 using Aquarium Advice mobile app