python cleaner

[slvrcvc]

when you use the python cleaner and have drained the tank and are ready to refill the tank with tap water, doesnt the tap water need to be treated first since the fishes are in the tank already?

or does the short exposure to tap water chlorine and chloramine and different pH levels not bad for the fish? and you can add your water conditioners and chemicals after the tank is filled back up?

[Gunnie]

Add your dechlor either just before refilling the tank, or pour it in the stream as it is going in the tank.

[vato]

If you put dechlorinator in the water and that isn't a problem the pH is what is going to be deadly to your fish (if the change is over about .5+ or even less). If you are totally empting the tank, then you cannot just refill the tank either, you will have to go through a cycle. The filter and gravel will have bacteria cultures but the water will not, and therefore in a few days will go thorough a spike, and hurt/kill your fish. It will not take as long as a start up cycle but it will need to happen. You shold not perform a complete water change without cycling your tank.

[JSchmidt]

Actually, there are very few ammonia- or nitrite-oxidizers in the water itself. They are almost entirely contained on the surfaces in the tank, esp. in the filter.

If the replacement water is similar to the existing tank water, in terms of pH, KH, GH and temperature, you can do large scale water changes without harming your fish or your biofilter. I regularly do 80% water changes on many of my Rift Lake tanks.

If your tap water and tank water differ, let us know by how much (and on which parameters) and we can help you figure out how much water could safely be changed at one time.

HTH,
Jim

[vato]

The issue that I am talking about though is the change in the water perameters and the lack of bacterial cuture. with that much increase in water volume the density of the bacteria colony to the water is very low, and can cause a spike in your nitrites (nitrates if you are lucky). Thus making it a very in hospitable environment for fish to live in. If you are going to do a 100% water change than you are going to really have to be on your toes. First of all your filter and gravel can't dry up or you will lose those cultures and have to start from the beggining again. And like JSchmidt said, you can do a large scale water change, but you have to make sure that your water perameters are the same or very similar, and that you have enough bacteria in the tank to support the new water.

[RTR]

Vato - have you ever heard of auto-changers - commonly used in higher tech fish rooms, changing water effectively on a continuous basis to keep the highest possble water quality.

There is absolutely no downside to large water changes, provided that the pH/KH/GH/TDS of of the source water are comparable to the tank water. The only downside could occur in a poorly maintained tank where the conditions were approaching Old Tank Syndrome and changes would need to be started at smaller percentage changes to avoid osmotic shock.

100% partials are not ordinarily required other than situation of accidentally added toxins, but there is no such thing as the "bacterial colony" garbage that you are putting out. Many folk breeding fish are set for 100% or higher daily partials and I propmise you they have no water prpblems. Don't try to start new myths without having some idea of what you are talking about.

[slvrcvc]

ok thanks for the replies. I'm only really talking about maintanance on the tank so probably 10%-30% water changes on a regular basis. So just adding my water conditioners as I add new water to the tank will be ok. Now I can feel safe about getting the python cleaner and using it...yay no more bucket hauling..hehe

oh and the tap water pH here is 7.7-7.8 and the tank water is usually 7.2-7.3 but that is after I use pH down. Maybe I will stop using pH down or just gradually decrease it to eliminate it and see how the fish adapt.

[JSchmidt]

I'd recommend ditching the pH Down. Almost all fish that can handle ph of 7.2-7.3 will do fine in your tap water. Just be sure to add dechlorinator as you add the new water and you'll be fine. A water change of 10-30%is pretty modest and certainly won't harm your fish.

If you want to wean your fish off the artificially lowered pH, just do 5-10% changes daily or every other day with tap water. That way, you'll gradually lower pH without shocking your fish.

Good luck,
Jim

[vato]

RTR I'm really not trying to start myths and I think I do know what I'm talking about. I have worked in two pet stores for over a year each, study extensively about freshwater aqauriums and I have a close friend who has been in the hobby for 50+ years who I talk with regularly. I honestly am not trying to start myths and, indeed it is important to maintain an amount of bacerial culture. For someone who is performing a 100% water change a day I can assume that they do not have chlorinated water, or have some sort of way proccesing the water. I live in the country and have my own well, therefore my water already contains an amount of bacterial culture, and the water perameters are close to those of my tank, so performing a large scale change is not much of a problem for me(I've only ever done an 80% change I'm not brave enough to do much more) but a person living in a city or a place with chemically treated water, there is a problem, ther will no longer have any bacterial culture. I can see how a large scale breeder can get away with large changes, because, ifrst of all, fish don't need the bacteria to survive, it is the water itself that bacteria is required. I know of chain pet stores that have sterilie water systems for this reason. But if you intend on keeping the water in the tank the water must have bacteria in it to prevent the spike of ammonia/nitrites/nitrates. I know what you are saying and I believe it is very valid. If I am still wrong I would apreciate it if you corrected me, so I can get my information striaght, and because I don't want to be the source of myths at all! I'm not trying to start a war here, so I'm sorry for possibly insulting you in any way, I hope there are no hard feelings.

[Harry Tolen]

I agree with RTR that very few of the bacteria are resident in the water column; most live in the gravel, in the filter, and on the other surfaces in the tank. If the water coming out of the tap is similar to the water already in your tank, therefore, your problems should be relatively non-existent even for major water changes.

That goes double for well water, not because it has bacteria in it (they test for that before they'll give your well a permit), but rather because it has no chlorine and is relatively chemically similar to the stuff already in your tank.

The only hesitation I would have is if your water contains chloramines instead of chlorine, because that chemical is more persistent and many of the popular water conditioners do not treat for it.

[JSchmidt]

I just finished changing 100 gallons of my 180 mbuna tank at work. I don't have the option of aging/pretreating water, so I fill directly from the tap.

Our water contains chloramines, so I use Amquel instead of a simple dechlorinator. I add buffers as the tank fills.

Despite my large-scale changes with chloriminated tap water, I NEVER experience ammonia or nitrite spikes following a water change.

Moreover, if the water contained a substantial proportion of nitrifying bacteria, people with UV units should experience chronic ammonia/nitrite problems. That doesn't happen.

There is substantial evidence that few of the beneficial bacteria responsible for oxidizing ammonia/nitrite are free-floating in the water. There is little or no evidence that large-scale water changes are harmful; if water contains chloramines, products like Amquel, Prime or AmmoLock2 are available.

Jim

Jim

[RTR]

Vato - dual carbon filters are normally employed with auto systems to pull the disinfectants out of the tap water. Low-moderate flows with tested dwell times ensure full removal of those agents.

IMHO, if your well has nitrification bacteria, your well is contaminated.

Logic study question: If "...frst of all, fish don't need the bacteria to survive, it is the water itself that bacteria is required." Then where is the problem? That reasoning says bacteria are not required for fish to live and breed (which is a bit off IMHO). I have seen any report of a "sterile" aquarium with fish, especially breeding fish, and doubt very seriously that any pet shop or hobbyistist in the world is capable of setting and maintaining a "sterile" aquarium. As I used to operate a gnotobiotic (germfree) animal colony as part of the lab, I do know exactly what is involved in that. But back on the logic question, if the fish do not require bacteria, how does the water? Water is not alive any more than air is alive. A tank is a semiclosed microecology, and it does require multiple living species to support fish - and that does include a substantial number of bacterial species.

[Watcher74]

Vato,

Ask how many people have moved all the filtration from a fully cycled tank to a new tank with freshly de-chlorinated water, netted over the livestock, dumped the old water, and experienced no cycle at all.

*raises hand*

I even used all new gravel.

[JSchmidt]

That's how I start my new tanks, now.

Jim

[vato]

I think I'm being misunderstood. I know that you can move fish from a tank with a filter that is fully cycled to a tank with freshly de-chorinated water. In fact I did this myself a few weeks ago. I'm gonna go back and read what I and others wrote and see if lines are just getting crossed, because right now I'm saying the very same thing as everyone else!!

[Watcher74]

By Vato

the water must have bacteria in it to prevent the spike of ammonia/nitrites/nitrates

I think that is part of the reason why everyone is confused. That sounds like you are saying that you need bacteria floating around in the water, not permantly living and doing their stuff in the filter(Or gravel for UGF).

Since the good bacteria stays inside the filter, 100% water changes (as long as they have the same PH/KH/GH/temp) will do nothing but good.

[vato]

Sorry, my bad! I'm well aware that you don't need bacteria in the water to have a succesful tank. The bacteria in the filter and the gravel should be more than enough. I'm sorry for causing all the confusion, We really haven't been saying anything contradictory to eachother this whole time, I just haven't been comunicating what I was saying very well. I'll try to be more clear next time to aviod confusion and the starting of factless myths!

[JSchmidt]

This is what most of us have been reacting to:


If you are totally empting the tank, then you cannot just refill the tank either, you will have to go through a cycle. The filter and gravel will have bacteria cultures but the water will not, and therefore in a few days will go thorough a spike, and hurt/kill your fish. ...... You shold not perform a complete water change without cycling your tank.

This is entirely contradictory to what the rest of us have been saying. I didn't think it was all that unclear, but it doesn't square with what I know about how a cycled tank operates.

Jim

[Watcher74]

Ok, no one is trying to jump on anyone here. I just think he got a concept from someone who had been keeping fish for so long, of course, anyone would believe it. I have some friends that have been keeping fish for over 15 years, and they are in their 20's and they have misbegotten concepts compared to what I have learned here.


I'm well aware that you don't need bacteria in the water to have a succesful tank. The bacteria in the filter and the gravel should be more than enough.

This, I believe, exhibits that concept that someone else has given him. The two key words is the word "need" in the first sentence and the word "should" in the second sentence.

The use of the word "need" in the first sentence implies that it isn't absolutely necessary but it would be better if you did.

The use of the word "should" in the second implies that there will probably be enough beneficial bacteria in the filter and the gravel even if you get rid of all the beneficial bacteria in the water.

Here, I'll repeat what I have learned here, from far greater minds than mine:

The beneficial bacteria does not float around freely in the water. It will cling to the biological filter, the glass, the ornaments, the gravel, etc. It does not float around(I'm sure an extremely tiny amount must, but not near enough to make up even a tiny, whole number fraction of the bacteria).

The only thing the fish need from the water is a stable PH/KH/GH/temp/disolved Oxygen. I'm probably forgetting something with that statement(I probably am), but beneficial bacteria is not one of them.

So no matter how much water is changed, or how often, as long as it meets the above list, and is dechlorinated, it will not cause a recycling of the tank.

That is what I have learned from AC. Someone please correct me if I'm confused.

[RTR]

You have to be a tad cautious using "beneficial bacteria", as many folks seem to improperly limit that meaning to nitrification bacteria. The heterotrophs and saprophytes and even free-floating algae may well be "beneficial" to the tank, whether they are bacteria, fungi, algae, larger infusorians, whatever their scale and kingdom/phyllum. Mature tanks have hundreds of species, if not thousands, most of which could be called harmless to beneficial. Very few are pathogenic to potentially pathogenic, but some "normal" residents can be pathogenic under the "wrong" conditions- pseudomonas and aeromonas are examples. Also in young tanks, there can be upsets or inbalances leading to cloudy water or green water - even though those same species might be "normal" and no problem in a mature tank. Many of the residents are water column dwellers - if you sample and look under a microscope, you will see loads of various critters. Our tank tend to much higher bacterial and other critter densities than do all but polluted natural waters. But the highest densities will be in the filters and on/near surfaces and the gravel.

Even though we do remove massive numbers of such microscopic and near-microscopic critters at water changes, there are more than enough remaining of all types to avoid the sort of cloudy water you get in new/young tank.

Is each of these beneficial? To quote a former President - it depends on what the definition of "is" is...

[Watcher74]

Yes, I was using "beneficial" interchangeably with "nitrifying" bacteria. Is there any other helpful aspect(besides preventing cloudy water) that any of the non-nitrifying bacteria provides?

[RTR]

The heterotrophs and saprophytes do >>90% of the breakdown of solid waste (poop, uneaten or only partially digested food, plant debris, undiscoved dead fish, etc.) in the tank. They are the aerobic vesion of a septic tank. They also are the basis of the in-tank food chain, however abbreviated it may be - bacteria eat this and that and absorb other dissolved things from the water, are in turn eaten by infusoria, nematodes, planaria, etc which are removed in filter and subtrate cleaning or just by water partials if not grazed by the inhabitants. They generate significant amounts of metabolic waste on their own, but our view of that is hidden by the much larger output of the fish.

Without them we would have on-going new tank counditions of cloudy water, etc.

The total biomass in a mature tank is normally in balance and not noticed, but it is lot bigger than most folks realize. The nitrifying bacteria get only their energy from oxidizing nitrogenous waste (their version of carbs). The rest of their food supply comes from dissolved materals mineralized by the rest of tank biomass.

[Watcher74]

By RTR

The nitrifying bacteria get only their energy from oxidizing nitrogenous waste (their version of carbs). The rest of their food supply comes from dissolved materals mineralized by the rest of tank biomass.

1. So dissolved materials are like vitamins and nutrients to the nitrifying bacteria?

2. What do you mean by dissolved materials mineralized by the rest of the tank biomass? How do they mineralize?

3. Do you mean mineralize the same as like the minerals that are replenished with partials?

4. If someone doesn't do partials would all the bacteria use up all the minerals and then starve or does the biomass make/recycle the minerals? Or will they get more because we feed the inhabitants?

[RTR]

Bacteria are relatively simple (opening myself up on that one- they really are not simple at all, "relatively" is the operative term) single-celled critters.

Some, the autotrophs (which include nitrification bacteria) generally live quite firmly attached to a hard (their definition, not ours - to them a sponge or floss is hard as it is solid and inert) substrate. They get everything they need to live and grow by in-taking/uptaking material dissolved in the water which is almost entirely inorganic (no carbon chains, proteins, cyclic hormones, etc.) . From that dissolved material they produce all the proteins, fats, etc. - the organics that make up their cells and walls - that they need. They have the "simplest" diet, as it is inorganic.

Others, the heterotrophs (generally much faster growing than the autotrophs and numerically the biggest part of the bacterial mass in a tank) tend to live on particulates also, but on organic to partly organic particulates. They need/want/use organics to start with. They are the great digestors. A fish poops - that poop contains some undigested unabsorbed food (percent depending in part on how badly the tank is overfed - in worst cases it is the majority), in part fish waste products secreted into the gut, and large numbers of gut bacteria. The bit of poop falling to the substrate already has some functional bacteria (some of the gut bacteria will not like the O2 level of the open tank, but some will) and will quickly be colonized by other species. All those bacteria in concert will break down the poop into smaller particles with lower quantities of organics. Those smaller particles will get picked up by the filter and hopefully trapped in the mechanical media there, where the breakdown to even lower organic loads will continue. Some of those particles will sift down in the substrate, where the O2 levels are lower and similar bacteria which like less oxygen (faculative anaerobes and anaerobes) do essentially the same role of extracting and using the organics. The resulting "mulm" (the tank equivalent of garden compost) is "mineralized" - the organics are extracted to build bacterial mass, the inorganics are a bit enriched, at least relatively so. These bacteria have much less simple diets, as theywant/need/use organics. What they leave behind is mineralized as it has little organic, primarily mineral materials left.

When we partial we remove masses of heterotrophs and thier ilk from non-bacterial realms, especially when we vacuum, and the same when we rinse the mechanical filter media.

Tanks have huge biomass in comparison to natural waters, in part because the fish load is so much greater, but also in part because of the added food (also greater to much greater than in the wild) and the massive bacterial presence needed to mineralize alll the intermediate results of that.

Bacteria are master recyclers. If there is an excess of this of that bacterium species, it can and will eat itself out of the food supply and die back. But others will consume the residues and continue - and the die-back is rarely total, only partial.

The dangerous losses to the tank over time are mainly to the natural buffering systems - carbonate/bicarbonate - such that the tank build up excessive acidity if not partialled to replace that. But mulm itself can build up to excessive levels also - then you also get the peculiar members of the food chain multiplying to the levels of notice - BGA, nematodes, planaria, hydra (in non-fry tanks) etc. as the infusoria on which they live are multiplying due to the enlarged (built-up) mineral and organic base. That organic base does include the total bacterial/infusorian mass present in the tank.

Heavy enough?

[Watcher74]

Dude, that's just wrong............... :thud:




Ok, I think I understand most of what you said.

To see if I got it I will state your answers to my questions in English:

1. In a way. Nitrifying bacteria eats inorganic(mineralized) material dissolved in the water as well as the Ammonia/Nitrite.

2. Wastes in the tank such as poop and uneaten food is broken down by a type of bacteria(non-nitrifying) that survives on organic material. The leftovers include the inorganic material along with any organic material that may be left over. That is how the biomass mineralizes.

3. No. The minerals that are replaced with partials is to replace the carbonate/bicarbonate in order to maintain the natural buffering system, as well as to keep down the levels of acidity.

4. The minerals are replaced when we feed the inhabitants of the tank. As well as the resulting inhabitant's wastes. They do recycle the minerals in this sense(food->poop->organic eating bacteria->inorganic eating bacteria(nitrifying bacteria)).

Is that right?

God I hope that's right.

[RTR]

Yup, pretty much. :D

[Watcher74]

................i got it?..........................I GOT IT!!!.............YAAAAA!!!!.....

I'm going to add to my sig, "I can read RTR." lol

No way................

Uhm........I'm starting to notice everyone except RTR and I are avoiding this thread like the plague......

[JSchmidt]

I'm reading... and learning....

Jim

[RTR]

But do keep in mind that ammonia or nitrite is the energy source for the nitrifying bacteria much more than anything else, and that their oxidation processes on those materials uses O2 and dumps H+ into the water (aerobic - uses oxygen, and acid-producing - so uses up buffer capacity)

Also remember that all the biomass excretes waste products - for the aerobic bacteria & infusoria this includes ammonia/ammonium, so they are part of the load on nitrification bacteria. This is part of why food reduction is so commonly suggested in fish cycling - it really does reduce bioload on the biofilter.

And this all totally ignores the DOC and dissolved mineral buildup removal from water changes - which is just as big & real a benefit to the tank as is buffer replenishment. This factor is part of what keeps the tank water parameters close to source levels, not just the alkalinity replenishment - much of that could be done by mineral addition, but with the downside of ever higher mineralization of the system..

At least there are some folks still noticing- that can't be a bad thing. It may help refute the common concept of running a "clean" (or even worse, "sterile") tank. There is no such thing - there are well-maintained tanks and then there those which are not - but they all have masses of unseen life forms working hard 24/7 and needing a bit of work now and then by the keeper to maintain an even keel.