Is it possible.....??

[Erynn]

Hey everyone,
I have a 20 gallon I have been cycling with zebra danios. Is it possible to take them out and finish the cycle fishlessly???? Right now it is in the middle of the ammonia "spike" (though water changes don't really let it spike!). So I'm wondering if I can take them out, put them in my cycled 30 gallon and finish the cycle without them. Possible?

Thanks!

[OrionGirl]

Yep. Very possible. You'll actually get a slightly stronger cycle, since you can increase the ammonia levels beyond what the danios provided.

[thalassic park]

You would have to keep adding fish food as if the fish were still there. This provides the NH3 for the chemotrophs. Probably best to leave the fish as they will adjust to a gradual increase in NH3.
The more ammonia in the tank during the cycle the larger the number of bacteria can colonise the filter media and then it can burn through the ammonia and nitrite.
I recommend no water exchanges during cycling as this would remove NH3 & NO2 and a large number of bacteria that you are trying to culture. Which in turn could limit the bacterial colony. Thus it Could be disasterous when you purchase a few new fish & introduce them at the same time.
The filter (without the addition of fish food during the cycle) would not cope (when adding new fish) with an immediate increase in bio-waste.

[OrionGirl]

Fishless cycling is done by adding ammonia manually. My answer was based on the assumption that the fish would be removed, and the additions of ammonia, along with the corresponding testing, would commence. This way, fish food isn't needed until the cycle completes and the fish are added. Using ammonia and the Chris Cow method of fishless cycling actually establishes a bacteria bed in excess of what is needed for a fully stocked tank.

Water changes during a fishless cycle will not make any real difference, but during a cycle with fish can be used to minimize the toxic levels the fish are exposed to. This will in no way reduce the size of the bacteria colonies, since any detectable ammonia levels (using hobbyist kits) indicates an ample food supply exists. The volume of water replaced to dilute the ammonia/nitrite levels within reason should be less each time as the bacteria bed establishes itself and is able to consume a great portion. Of course, this bacteria bed will only build itself to the level needed for the existing fish population, so any further additions will result in a 'mini-cycle'.

[thalassic park]

hi,
my point was that fish food is ammonia.

[OrionGirl]

Fish food becomes ammonia, but it's much easier to just use ammonia. That way you know how much to dose. I have no idea how much food I'd need to add, since the ammonia from the food wouldn't show up until the food decayed.

Didn't mean to argue, just trying to clarify my previous post.

[thalassic park]

hi,
no arguement here you know your stuff.

Using ammonia and the Chris Cow method of fishless cycling actually establishes a bacteria bed in excess of what is needed for a fully stocked tank.

provided there is enough surface area on the filter media.

Over the years I've learnt how to minimise my expenses, if you have fishfood you can the achieve the same result without purchasing ammonia.

Water changes during a fishless cycle will not make any real difference, but during a cycle with fish can be used to minimize the toxic levels the fish are exposed to. This will in no way reduce the size of the bacteria colonies, since any detectable ammonia levels (using hobbyist kits) indicates an ample food supply exists.

Provided the pH doesn't shift rapidly.
It seems a lot of people think pH 6 - 7 is good for fish.
but the ammonia is converted to ammonium which (i believe) is not processed by the chemotrophs. If the exchange water has a pH higher than 7 then the shift in pH can cause the ammonium to convert back to ammonia and if the filter has not been processing the ammonium then the increased change to ammonia can shock the filter. Resulting in an increase in NH3 & NO2.

[RTR]

Huh?

"best to leave the fish as they will adjust to a gradual increase in NH3."

No, that "adaptation" will be permanent gill damage or death. Fish do not adapt to ammonia. If they did it would not be a waste product, but an intermediary metabolite.

"It seems a lot of people think pH 6 - 7 is good for fish.
but the ammonia is converted to ammonium which (i believe) is not processed by the chemotrophs."

Nitrification bacteria process ammonium ion just as well as ammonia, in fact in may be a bit easier to process, but that would depend on the particular transport mechanism used by the the bacteria, and I don't have that info. If you have a reference for ammonium not being processed, I'd like to look into that.

"If the exchange water has a pH higher than 7 then the shift in pH can cause the ammonium to convert back to ammonia and if the filter has not been processing the ammonium then the increased change to ammonia can shock the filter. Resulting in an increase in NH3 & NO2."

What does this mean? Ammonia and ammonium ion shift back and forth from one form to the other constantly in aqueous solution, it is the nature of the molecule and it and water's electrochemical properties. The percentage distribution of either form is determined by the pH of the soution. Yes, in acid water the majority is in the form of the ammonium ion, and in very strongly alkaline water the majority is in the form of ammonia. But the shift is gradual with pH change, there is no pH point where it all flips like a light switch. That is completely muddled. "...the increased change to ammonia can shock the filter." What? Do you believe an ammonia dose "shocks" the filter (bacteria)? It does not. It provides more energy source, which enables the bacteria to grow and multiply. "Resulting in an increase in NH3 & NO2." What? If you mean adding water of a higher pH to a tank at lower pH will increase the relative percentage of NH3/NH4+ in the NH3 form, yes, that is correct. There is a pH-dependent equilibrium between the two forms. If you think this is a major change unless the difference in the two water volumes is far beyond what should ever be done in a fishtank, you are mistaken. And what does the NO2 (nitrite) have to do with it? Nitrite is not pH sensitive.

If you are going to answer questions concerning chemistry, please check you facts first if you are uncertain.

[Erynn]

No need to start a flame here...that's not what I was trying to do by asking my question. Different people have different ways of doing stuff.....doesn't mean one way is wrong. That is something I notice on this forum....there are a lot of attacks on people and if anyone suggests a different way of doing something it is usually pushed aside because it is different from the "right"way.

Personally, when I have fishless cycled in the past I have used ammonia and that is what I'll use again this time.

My question was will it interrupt the cycle if I take the fish out and continue fishlessly....I found out it will not so I will continue fishlessly.

Thanks.

[thalassic park]

the increased change to ammonia can shock the filter." What? Do you believe an ammonia dose "shocks" the filter (bacteria)? It does not.

"the bacterial colonies must be allowed to grow before the system is stocked to capacity. Naturally if this is not done, the bacteria will be unable to handle the waste load, and the culture organism will show symptoms of nitrogen toxicity."

Landau "Intro to Aquaculture" - filtration and water treatment.

No, that "adaptation" will be permanent gill damage or death. Fish do not adapt to ammonia. If they did it would not be a waste product, but an intermediary metabolite.

I'm not sure that i used the word adapt if I did I was wrong. what I mean't was that they (most fish) can tolerate a gradual rise in ammonia levels. I believe that is how cycling a tank with fish in works.

If you have a reference for ammonium not being processed, I'd like to look into that.

I'm sorry about this part, I did mean to include a question mark in the brackets.

which (i believe?) is not


If you think this is a major change unless the difference in the two water volumes is far beyond what should ever be done in a fishtank, you are mistaken. And what does the NO2 (nitrite) have to do with it? Nitrite is not pH sensitive.

an increase in NH3 & NO2." What? If you mean adding water of a higher pH to a tank at lower pH will increase the relative percentage of NH3/NH4+ in the NH3 form, yes, that is correct. There is a pH-dependent equilibrium between the two forms. If you think this is a major change unless the difference in the two water volumes is far beyond what should ever be done in a fishtank, you are mistaken. And what does the NO2 (nitrite) have to do with it? Nitrite is not pH sensitive.

What i guess i was trying to say was that if a person chooses pH 6.5, then over time with bio activity acids increase in the water & Calcium and Magnesium are removed by growing organisms, then the pH can continue to fall. Then say you take out 25% water exchange and clean your filter (removing large amounts of bacteria), and add tap water which is generally basic to minimise pipe corrosion. Then yes you have a bio-filter with less bacteria, the pH increases above 7 and you have a spike in ammonia. If the ammonia is not being completely processed (less bacteria) then iT would be understandable that the nitro bacti are struggling to cope with the converted nitrite waste as well.
have you ever completed a large water exchange only to realise you may have upset the chemistry too much.

what does the NO2 (nitrite) have to do with it? Nitrite is not pH sensitive.

O,k I don't think I said that nitrite is pH sensitive, what I was referring to is that if the filter has been shocked, and the nitrosomonas can't process then ammonia, then it would fair to assume that the nitro bacti, would struggle as well. If there is not enough bacteria to process the ammonia and the nitrite waste then there will be an increase in ammonia and Nitrite.

sorry for the confusion.

[RTR]

First, Nitrosomas have been shown not to be the FW nirtification bacteria, so it is better not to use names unless they are currently accepted.

Second, cleaning of biofilters should not remove significant nitrification bacteria, they are very firmly attached and must be to fuction.

Third:
"the bacterial colonies must be allowed to grow before the system is stocked to capacity. Naturally if this is not done, the bacteria will be unable to handle the waste load, and the culture organism will show symptoms of nitrogen toxicity."

The quotation from Landau say nothing about ammonia shocking a filter. It say quite plainly that the colonies but be of sufficient size to process the bioload. What does that have to do with shocking the filter by ammonia addition? Nothing that I can see.

Forth:
"what I mean't was that they (most fish) can tolerate a gradual rise in ammonia levels. I believe that is how cycling a tank with fish in works. "

No, that is not at all how cycling with fish works. The fish, if sufficiently hardy and not exposed to damaging or lethal levels of ammonia, survive while the bacterial colonies develop. If exposed to higher levels of ammonia the fish are damaged or die.

Neither calcium (Ca) nor magnesium (Mg), nor for that matter rock salt (NaCl), has any effect whatsoever on the pH. GH (calcium and magnesium hardness) is not part of pH equilbrium or maintenance. KH (carbonate/bicarbonate hardness or alkalinity) is important to pH.

Fifth: Absolutely nothing was said in earlier post about cleaning biofilters, nothing. That topic has not come up.

And no, I have never had any biofiltration upset from water changes of any scale. But then I have never done water changes with water significantly different from the tank water. Why would you?

I am not trying to run a flame, I am trying very hard to correct erroneous information that some readers might accept as fact - which is exactly how aquarium myths arise. We have more than enough incorrect information around now, we do not need more.

[thalassic park]

o,K,
What is the name for the bacteria?

Second, cleaning of biofilters should not remove significant nitrification bacteria, they are very firmly attached and must be to fuction.

"however, realise that the water in the aquarium contains many tiny particles carrying Nitrifying bacteria. When changing water in order to dilute the nitrite concentration we also diminish the population of bacteria which can break down nitrite". "Another mistake that many (most?) aquarists make is to constantly stir up their UG substrate or "hoover" it with a gravel cleaner. This is highly undesirable. The areas of maximum bacterial activity are at the surface, were there is the highest conc. of wastes & oxygen, turning over the filter bed almosts certainlyprevents proper maturation; many bacteria are removed with the 'dirt'. Tanks subject to this sort of cleaning often suffer frequent nitrite peaks. (Konnings 1993 Enjoying Cichlids).

"Nitrification utilises bicarbonates and this will enhance the process of lowering the pH"
"In other words, in water with a low concentration of Bicarbonates (soft water) the all-important nitrification process is hampered leading to a build up of ammonium" (Konnings 1993)

"In aquaria with cichlids that require a high pH, such as Rift Lake cichlids, no problem maintaining such levels because one can use limestone (Calcium Carbonate?) and sodium Bicarbonate to obtain a high pH and buffer the water."
"Never raise the pH without a partial water exchange. The reason is that free ammonium suddenly converted to toxic ammonia. The bacteria that breakdown the ammonium need inorganic carbon in order to grow. When the pH has dropped this means that insufficient carbonate is available for the nitrifying bacteria and that the waste product ammonium will build up. A sudden rise of the pH ' can be catastrophic because free ammonia will be instantly formed"(konnings1993)"

This is why I wrote about people for some reason that want to obtain a pH between 6-7. It may be fine for breeding amazonians but as hobby tank (not a breeder) It makes far more sense to keep the pH above 7. The tap water in most water supplies run through metal pipes, so the SP maintains an alkali pH to minimise disintingration of the pipes via acid or even slightly acid water.

As you say why would you want to have a water supply that is drastically different from the Tank. If it comes out slightly akali, leave it like that. Less worries about low carbonates that would impede the functionality of the filter.

"The hardness of the water not so important for cichlids which normally live in soft water (unless the carbonate hardness is below 45 ppm)"(konnings)

The quotation from Landau say nothing about ammonia shocking a filter.
Well the terminology may be different but when a bio-filter is overloaded either by overfeeding or overstocking or poor maintanence. So as the ammonia waste is not being converted it is known as a filter shock (at least at Fremantle Maritime Centre).

No, that is not at all how cycling with fish works. The fish, if sufficiently hardy and not exposed to damaging or lethal levels of ammonia, survive while the bacterial colonies develop. If exposed to higher levels of ammonia the fish are damaged or die.

if sufficiently hardy and not exposed to damaging or lethal levels of ammonia, survive while the bacterial colonies develop.

Just what I said.

From experience I learn't that you can buy a fish and put it in a new tank. A few days later the NH3 builds but you buy a fish anyway even the same spp. The first fish is doing fine then you acclimatize the second fish, but alas he's dead acute ammonia poisoning, but why does the fish that started out with the cycle survive.
Tolerance to the conditions of a tank. ever tested someones tank for ammonia (off the scale) but the person tells me "my fish are fine".

Neither calcium (Ca) nor magnesium (Mg), nor for that matter rock salt (NaCl), has any effect whatsoever on the pH.

Salts can detoxify nitrite if the filter isn't mature.
Calcium Carbonate buffers the water. Calcium is taken up by fish for bone structure and may also be utilized in ova production, as is Mg for development of the young.

Fifth: Absolutely nothing was said in earlier post about cleaning biofilters, nothing. That topic has not come up.

A gravel clean is usually asociated with a W/E. And water exchanges can remove bacteria in the tank and media.

And no, I have never had any biofiltration upset from water changes of any scale. But then I have never done water changes with water significantly different from the tank water. Why would you?
Sometimes it is a necessity. Consider yourself lucky.

Well I learn't something and I'm sure if anyone who could be bothered going through this lot of posts would learn a great deal as well.
I don't claim to be a great scientist (i failed 1st year chem). But I do have a lot of experience to base my theories on. And I love science.
The convo might have got a bit harsh. But I'm only doing this to offer my point of view on aquaria.
great discussion.

[RTR]

The most likely bacteria for nitrification in FW tanks are Nitrospira and Nitrococcus. If you do a search on Dr. Tim Hovanec you will find the popularizations of the peer-reviewed work showing this.

"however, realise that the water in the aquarium contains many tiny particles carrying Nitrifying bacteria. When changing water in order to dilute the nitrite concentration we also diminish the population of bacteria which can break down nitrite". This is incorrect.

"Another mistake that many (most?) aquarists make is to constantly stir up their UG substrate or "hoover" it with a gravel cleaner. This is highly undesirable..." This too is incorect, serious aquarium myth. Nitrification bacteria are quite firmly attached and will not be disturbed by vacuuming. Ever heard of fluidized bed filters? They are effectively being "vacummed" 24/7/365 with no disturbance in nitrification. Ditto wet/dry filters, but they have lower distrurbance than FBF. Only poorly maintained UG filters where the substrate has been so smothered with debis that the bacteria have had to migrate off the substrate will be disturbed. If you maintain the UF properly to being with, and so maintain it, it will work beautifully as a biofilter for decades.

"Nitrification utilises bicarbonates and this will enhance the process of lowering the pH" This is correct. But do note that the quote specifies "bicarbonates", not calcium or magnesium.

"In other words, in water with a low concentration of Bicarbonates (soft water) the all-important nitrification process is hampered leading to a build up of ammonium" This is debatable. Low bicarbonate and the absence of bicarbonate are different matters - levels too low to be measured by hobby tests do not mean that bicarbonate is absent, or that nitrification will not and cannot occur - otherwise Discus and Apistogramma tanks would all be killed off by unprocessed waste and they are not.

"Never raise the pH without a partial water exchange. The reason is that free ammonium suddenly converted to toxic ammonia. The bacteria that breakdown the ammonium need inorganic carbon in order to grow. When the pH has dropped this means that insufficient carbonate is available for the nitrifying bacteria and that the waste product ammonium will build up. A sudden rise of the pH ' can be catastrophic because free ammonia will be instantly formed" This is so muddled that it becomes incorrect by distortion. First, it is true that increased pH will have more ammonia/ammonium in the toxic ammonia form. That is not disputed. But why on earth would anyone raise the pH in a tank when they are aware that ammonia/ammonium is present in detectable amounts? There is never any reason to do such a thing. The "sudden rise in the pH" is another no-no in any tank, this too is poor tank practice whether ammonia/ammonium is present or not. If the author is saying that such practices are acceptable, he is again wrong.

" As you say why would you want to have a water supply that is drastically different from the Tank. If it comes out slightly akali, leave it like that. Less worries about low carbonates that would impede the functionality of the filter." I agree with the first two sentences, the third is misleading or incorrect. The worry with low-alkalinity water is pH instability, not impeding the functionality of the filter. Stability matters much more than the specific pH for most hobby tanks.

"The quotation from Landau say nothing about ammonia shocking a filter.
Well the terminology may be different but when a bio-filter is overloaded either by overfeeding or overstocking or poor maintanence. So as the ammonia waste is not being converted it is known as a filter shock (at least at Fremantle Maritime Centre)." The term "shocking a filter" used as being synonomous with overloading a filter with unoxidized metabolites is not hobby language at all. If you wish to use non-hobby language, you should explain your meaning at least, otherwise you are not communicating - as obviously happened here.

"if sufficiently hardy and not exposed to damaging or lethal levels of ammonia, survive while the bacterial colonies develop."

"Just what I said." No. it is not at all what you said, you said, and again I quote as I did previously: "best to leave the fish as they will adjust to a gradual increase in NH3." That is not at all, in any way the same thing. You are saying the fish adapt to the ammonia, which is wrong. The nitrification colony develops and oxidizes the ammonia. The fish are are no more nor no less sensitve to ammonia than they were originally. This is not in any way adaptation, has nothing to do with it. This is basic biology, and needs to be understood.

"Salts can detoxify nitrite if the filter isn't mature." Yes, NaCl can block the toxicity of nitite within reason. And what does that have to do with pH? Nothing.

"Calcium Carbonate buffers the water." Although very poorly soluble, the carbonates from calcium carbonate will buffer the water and raise the pH. The calcium has nothing, nada, zilch to do with it. Nor does magnesium have any buffering ability. Basic chemistry again.

"A gravel clean is usually asociated with a W/E. And water exchanges can remove bacteria in the tank and media." And again, if the tank is properly maintained and the gravel or filter medium cleaning is properly done, there should be no damage whatsoever to the biofilter.

"But I do have a lot of experience to base my theories on." Then it is good to get them out in the open and find out if they are in keeping with chemistry and biology in the real world, and also to discover where you have been given mistaken ideas. The errors you have shown are mainly common aquarium myths and mistakes- such as UG upkeep, confusion between calcium/magnesium and carbonate/bicarbonate, lack of understanding of the equilibrium of the two forms of ammonia in water, etc. But understanding the chemistry and biology and microbiology of tanks should improve the advice you give.

[thalassic park]

rtr,
I see your point with FBF's.
But I still Think Ad is at least partially correct in what he wrote.

I found some notes.

Engineering Design and Performance of a Model Aquaculture Recirculating System (MARS) for Secondary School Aquaculture Education.
by T.M. Losordo, J.M. Ebeling and D.P. Delong.

Under the heading pH.
"Nitrification of Ammonia and Nitrite-nitrogen produces hydrgen ions that reduce the pH of the water. The hydrgen ions combine with bases such as hydroxide (OH-), carbonate and bicarbonate, and the alkalinity is reduced & the pH lowered. pH levels below 4.5 are dangerous to fish and below 7.0 will reduce the activity of nitrifying bacteria."

To clarify "Filter Shock"
Most aquaculture recirc system have high stocking densities. With the total ammonia ammonium being produced by the fishes gills 24 hours a day. The biofilter seems to manage. But the animals are being fed to satiation either twice daily or four times daily. Fish have their peak biological activity at feed time + 4 hrs. This is when spikes in ammonia ammonium occur. It takes time for the biofilter to process the increased amounts of NH4+/NH3.



You've got me researching hard.

"levels too low to be measured by hobby test". The recommended requirement of carbonate hardness for A bio-filters operation is > 50ppm.
From what I recall of my testing days there are tests that go up in increments of 10ppm or if the test amount was halved it would increase by 20ppm.

But why on earth would anyone raise the pH in a tank when they are aware that ammonia/ammonium is present in detectable amounts?
A lot of customers don't test the source water or for that matter the tank water before adding the source water. Although when the fish start dying they would bring a sample to be tested.


If the author is saying that such practices are acceptable, he is again wrong.
The author wasn't suggesting at all to add increased pH water to your tank. Only if you choose to fill your tank with a higher pH for a spp. that prefers that. But I know we both agree that maintaining stability is more important than exact spp. requirements.
It is just that Ad knows that most water suppliers have water qualities that are variable at best. The general water supply runs through copper pipe, so the suppliers ensure the water offered is slightly alkali to protect the pipes from corrosion. Which can cause problems for tanks that are newly established where the person has been told their Neons need pH 6.5.

When I started at a fish shop, Customers who bought new tanks and wanted fish 'Today', were told start the tank up, choose some cheap fish, and then let it run. They were also instructed to do a 20-25% W/E each week, But, they were told not purchase anymore fish until the cycle was complete. Many customer would come back and say they couldn't resist & purchased more fish (from another lfs). The fish that we sold with the tank are "fine" they would say. Although the newer purchase had died.
Must a bad fish shop they'd say. I would test the water and quite often the NH3 was greater than 0.05 ppm.
"That is my anecdotal evidence" I couldn't find a reference to back up my theory.

This is so muddled that it becomes incorrect by distortion. Please reread it.

The worry with low-alkalinity water is pH instability,
Is the pH more likely to fall or rise with low alkalinity?

I will keep up the research. Because I really don't want to give bad advice and I enjoy the hobby. My sources of info are becoming dated.
Continue tomorrow?

[carpguy]

First off, please please please use some form of quote, either tag or mark. Its an interesting thread that is getting almost impossible to read. A serious source of muddle.


Originally posted by thalassic park
What is the name for the bacteria?
The name of the bacteria is mostly irrelevant for hobby purposes. Dr. Hovanec's research means that BioSpira just might work. I usually just call them the ammonia-eaters and the nitrite-eaters to avoid this particular bit.


some of the Konnigs quote
"however, realise that the water in the aquarium contains many tiny particles carrying Nitrifying bacteria. When changing water in order to dilute the nitrite concentration we also diminish the population of bacteria which can break down nitrite"…. "Another mistake that many (most?) aquarists make is to constantly stir up their UG substrate or 'hoover' it with a gravel cleaner. This is highly undesirable. The areas of maximum bacterial activity are at the surface, were there is the highest conc. of wastes & oxygen, turning over the filter bed almosts certainlyprevents proper maturation; many bacteria are removed with the 'dirt'. Tanks subject to this sort of cleaning often suffer frequent nitrite peaks. (Konnings 1993 Enjoying Cichlids).

A gravel clean is usually asociated with a W/E. And water exchanges can remove bacteria in the tank and media.
The nitrifying bacteria are 'on' things, not free-floating. Even the quote references "many tiny particles". Mostly, they're on the substrate and in the filter, especially when the substrate is the filter. Since they can double their numbers overnight, anything pulled out in a waterchange is going to be replaced just about instantaneously in a mature tank.

RTR has an article on these fellers, with a part 1 (http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/microbes1.shtml) that covers the nitrogen crew, and a part 2 (http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/microbes2.shtml) that covers 'others'.

One problem with 'hoovering', esp in a non-UGF tank, is that the aerobic nitrifying bacteria are living at or near the top of the substrate. Burying them is not good for them. Its a matter of killing them, not removing them. Which is why I only siphn the dirt up and leave the substrate undisturbed. I don't associate water changes with gravel cleans because I do one and not the other.


on the subject of nitrifying bacteria and softwater, with a bit on the alkalinity of tapwater, as in
"In other words, in water with a low concentration of Bicarbonates (soft water) the all-important nitrification process is hampered leading to a build up of ammonium" (Konnings 1993)
I think the most accurate statement you could make about tapwater in general is this: it varies from tap to tap. My tap and the other millions of taps in the Catskill/Delaware-Croton Water System (NYC and environs) have very soft and acidic water. There are folks with wells, folks with high pH low KH water, all sorts of water. Tapwater doesn't tend to be alkaline or anything else.

Since I'm on the Catskill/Delaware feed (with an average KH of about 13.5ppm, according to the City), I use crushed coral to boost my KH up to about 3 dKH, which leaves my pH just south of 7 (6.8ish). Even in this unfriendly enviroment I have no detectable ammonia/ammonium. My pH was closer to 6 (and KH lower) when I did my fishless. The tank could burn through a 5ppm dose of ammonia overnight and leave no detectable ammonia. There should always be no detectable ammonia. If there was it would be mostly non-toxic ammonium and it is true that the ratio would shift towards ammonia in the event of a sudden pH spike. This could indeed be catastrophic. Not a concern.


To clarify "Filter Shock"
Most aquaculture recirc system have high stocking densities… It takes time for the biofilter to process the increased amounts of NH4+/NH3.
I'd think the biofilter would adapt itself to regular daily spikes, but if your talking about high stocking densities where the filter is operating at or near maximum load and then being stressed passed its capacity… well thats just a bad way to run a tank.


The worry with low-alkalinity water is pH instability,
Is the pH more likely to fall or rise with low alkalinity?
With low alkalinity the pH is liable to take a sudden nose dive because of the bioacidification you detailed earlier. Sudden is bad.


I will keep up the research… You've got me researching hard.
RTR is like that.


Continue tomorrow?
I understand Erynn's (and share) aversion to flame wars, but the best and most informative threads are the ones where the debate gets heated but manages to stay civil and respectful at the same time. This is looking to me like one of those…

Nice arguing with you
:D

[RTR]

Okay, carpguy has already responded to multiple items, so with luck this won't have to be so long...

"I see your point with FBF's.
But I still Think Ad is at least partially correct in what he wrote."

That is subject to what he means by "small particles". If the reference is to suspended particulates in tank water, he is way off base. If the ref is to substate particles, he is fine, but I do not remove any substrate when I vacuum. The general tone of the paragraph is the commonest form of the aquarium myth about UG filters - that they should not be disturbed - and was prominent in the hobby back in the early '90s when most folks had given up airlift UG and installed overpowered powerheads. This results in an excellent biofilter being overpowered to become a far too effective mechanical filter (with subsequent suffocation of the nitrification bacteria). When such a system is unmaintained, it is a time bomb IMHO. If you want expansion on this, see:

http://www.aaquaria.com/aquasource/rtrrfug.shtml

"Nitrification of Ammonia and Nitrite-nitrogen produces hydrgen ions that reduce the pH of the water. The hydrgen ions combine with bases such as hydroxide (OH-), carbonate and bicarbonate, and the alkalinity is reduced & the pH lowered. pH levels below 4.5 are dangerous to fish and below 7.0 will reduce the activity of nitrifying bacteria."

Two points here:
1. Aquaculture systems and hobby tanks are two different worlds. There is more than an order of magnitude bioloading difference between the two. Aquaculture systems must be high-redundancy failsafe operations or they are doomed. Most hobby systems (not mine, I'm too neurotic) are barely marginal. In a hobby system, other than in high-dose (5ppm NH3 fishless cycling) cycling, there is never any short-term strain on the bicarbonate buffer system (long term is different, and does cause problems).
2. The routine nitrification bacteria do have a peak performance level that is at least neutral or above. This is not well studied from what I have found, but the significant slow-down of the microbes does not occur until at or below pH 6.0, and in hobby systems this presents no issues in normal operations (with the fishless cycling exception noted before). Folks who have extended nitrogen cycle problems, and the issue you noted for aquaculture systems, are IMHO inadequate systems for the bioload. An adequately sized biofilter will respond to and more than compensate for the bioload presented to it. But sizing is not filter surface, nutrient and oxygen delivery, and bioload alone - the chemistry of the water in the system is part of that balance, and if it is not included, the system may be insufficient. No factor is to be ignored other than at significant risk. An aquaculture system may be designed for all parameters to be optimum. Hobby tanks are not. There is absolutely no reason for hobbyists to optimize the water to support the filter bacteria. There is only rarely (breeding specific fish) any justification for hobbyists to do any water modification at all. The casual hobbyists are unlikely to have the test material to do so safely, and there is little justification for a family community tank to be supported by pH meters/controllers, dosing pumps, TDS meters, etc. Hobby safety margins are, in reality, huge. Tropical fish are largely quite adaptable for maintenence purposes.
So in summary, a performance level which may be inadequate in aquaculture is likely to have no effect whatsoever in a normal hobby tank, due to the massive difference in margins allowed and available.

Carpguy wrote:
" One problem with 'hoovering', esp in a non-UGF tank, is that the aerobic nitrifying bacteria are living at or near the top of the substrate. Burying them is not good for them. Its a matter of killing them, not removing them. Which is why I only siphn the dirt up and leave the substrate undisturbed. I don't associate water changes with gravel cleans because I do one and not the other." With which I completely agree - but with some of my usual hedges and qualifications. In a UG or RFUG tank, the entire substrate should be clean and well oxygenated - if it is not, the setup is improperly done and should be corrected. In an non-UG tank there will always be a gradient of oxygen tension, decreasing with depth. The slope (steepness) of the gradient is an inverse function of the particle size - the larger the particles, the shallower the slope (i.e., pea gravel has O2 at much greater depth so long as it is clean, 2-3mm aquarium gravel is moderate slope, sand has a very steep slope and the finer the sand the steeper the slope).
BUT (big but), there is little or no reason for unplanted tanks to have deep substrates at all. They serve no purpose IMHO & IME other than as nitrate reservoirs.
Another reservation for my tanks is that I never rely on substrate or tank bacteria for nitrification other than RFUG tanks. I have filters for that purpose and have demonstrated repeatedly that they are the home of the wide majority of the nitrification bacteria and activity. So in effect I care not what the bacteria in the substrate do or do not do for nitrification, that is handled elsewhere.
Planted tanks are special cases and the substrate is handled exactly as carpguy describes - very light vacuuming for removal of macro debris resting atop the substrate with no disturbance of the substrate at all.

Another carpguy quote:
"Tapwater doesn't tend to be alkaline or anything else." For this one my biggest quibble would be that in this country, municipal systems are tending to modify source water of whatever original nature to a product which is at least slighty (and perhaps temporarily) alkaline - to protect our massive presence of copper pipes.
Someday hobbyists will learn that water tested directly from the running tap has little to do with what it will be or read on tests a couple of days later. I hope.

"Which can cause problems for tanks that are newly established where the person has been told their Neons need pH 6.5." I tilt at windmills all the time, but even I am unwilling to get into the world of incorrect and damaging information provided by LFS employees. This is a problem without a viable solution.

The paragraph following that quote is more of the same, but from the unknowing customer's side - the knowledgeable LFS employeee/owner can suggest, but they cannot control. I am not and never would be in retail, as I would be bankrupt. I don't believe I would be able to resist saying that thier own lack of knowledge and action contrary to advice was killing their fish. IMHO, if everything in our hobby costs ten-fold what it does, our fish just might be far healthier. Same fish, same equipment. But from the price tag they would be handled with a bit more care. And more customers would be willing to have the routine hobby test kits that should be part of even the simplest community tank setup. Ignorance is not bliss, it is deadly. Because it is so alien to my own personality, I have never been able to grasp the wide-eyed acceptance of any and all information provided by an emplyee of the LFS. Perhaps because of my research background I have never been that trusting of anyone or anthing casually said, and of very little non-peer-reveiwed in written form, or even unexamined acceptance of peer-reviewed material. With a nod to wetmanNY, skepticism is healthy.

[thalassic park]

Hi RTR and CARPGUY,
I appreciate the passion u both share for water quality.
Also RTR forced me to go over subjects I've learnt before & to reevaluate the data. I found it be very rewarding.

Firstly I want to stand up for lfs dudes. They got it tuffer than some realise. The lfs dudes are generally hobbyists that have obtained enjoyable employment from a pet store. The owners of the store pressure their workers to sell, sell, sell.
One example is Instead of being able to offer a customer who has a sick fish, Rock salt as an intiial treatment. Which would probably work. They are forced to offer manufactured remedies, which the pet store makes a lot of money on. Some of these remedies are carcinogenic (malachite green) and are also destructive to the environment. I know I constantly struggled with the knowledge that 'this person doesn't need to buy that product'. Eventually I was told to make a choice sell the treatments or move on, I chose to move on.
Also the fish dude is responsible to the boss for customer complaints, for fish that died soon after purchase. So generally there is a specific conduct drawn up of what to tell a customer when they set up their new aquarium. This code is maintained by all staff (to a point) to minimize the customer complaint of "this dude told me such yesterday & now this other person is telling me something different today. Who do I believe".
And generally the code has been constructed, with dated information.

So after all this I've come to the conclusion that generalities apply to far fewer aquarium situations than I previously believed.

Although I'd like for you to consider the stocking density that was once in one of my tanks.

660 litre tank, filled with limestone.
53 Tropheus, (3 differing spp)
7 Petrochromis
15 Aus Rainbows
5 Bristle nose.
28 degrees celcius, Eheim 2228, 2k litre biofilter & airpump.
I noted on a particular summers day a water temp of 37 degrees celcius.
pH 9.0 - 9.5

bye.

[RTR]

So, being forced to give out bad info justifies and excuses the bad info? I think not.

I pity your fish. I hope that is not intended as an example of good aquarium practice.

Good luck to you.

[thalassic park]

Hi,
I don't believe I gave out any bad info.
My Ideas on fish keeping may be different from yours but I've a strong aquaculture base to my learning. If that comes through into a hobby which is in fact more like aquaculture than what you realise, then I don't apologise.

I'm new to this forum and I can't help but think that you may be a bit mean, I not sure if it just comes across like that or that in fact you are mean.

The information I gave was referenced, as I explained in my reasoning.
Scientist disagree on many factors of aquaculture as new technology is introduced or made affordable. It is only by collaboration of years of trial and error are boundaries established. The books I have may be a bit dated now but I except that the author who has given consistantly logical advise as to keeping certain fish, has gained my loyalty & it would need to be well referenced information to sway my opinion.
I don't know why you say you pity my fish after all the filtration was fine, the water exchanges were fine, limestone rocks were fine, the addition of salt and buffer was fine, the pecking order of the fish was stable.
3 T. "BLACK" produce 24 fry that grew in the tank.
The only ones I didn't breed were the Petro's.
Seems to me they were fine.


smugness is not a good quality.

These boundaries are not the end of learning.

[RTR]

If correcting incorrect information (such as your very first post in this thread and many points in subsequent ones) is mean, then yes, I am mean as hell.

If you catch me giving out incorrect info, do feel free to correct me. I don't consider being corrected as being mean, I consider it helpful.

[bimmersamster]

Originally posted by RTR
So, being forced to give out bad info justifies and excuses the bad info? I think not.

I pity your fish. I hope that is not intended as an example of good aquarium practice.

Good luck to you.

i pity people who try to take your advice. You are a pompous, arrogant freak who needs to be a bit more humble in the way you present your knowledge. I hope that is not intended as an example of good hobbyist manners.

Good luck to you.

[stik6shift98]

cant we all just get along?????:confused: :confused: :confused:

[OrionGirl]

Wow--dragging this up to flame RTR? No, no, no.

Locking this. You were not part of the initial discussion, and no one who was involved felt he was rude.