Ammonia Levels During Fishy Cycle

:Laugh: That's like asking why it takes some people an hour to understand what some one else picks up in 5 minutes. Too many variables to control when dealing with a fishy cycle for them to be comparable. Additives, medications, temp fluctuations, all can have an impact on the growth rate of the bacteria.
 
Laughs twice *bangs head on desk*

This is just basic biology. Organisms reproduce at a faster rate when there is a more readily available food source. By keeping the amount of consumable food at neglible levels, you are limiting the rate at which the cells divide and increasing the rate of die off. (And the time it takes for the population levels to reach the point where they consume the bioload of the fish). Yes, I couldn't eat a full side of beef, yet bacteria are bound by an entirely different physiology which doesn't invlove multiple systems as complex as mine. It is simply consume, divide, consume, divide, until there is no ability to consume left.

But regardless-

Isn't the goal here to get the cycle out of the way as quickly as painlessly as possible? Wouldn't converting the toxins to a non toxic yet (bio filter) consumable form be better for the health of the fish and the sanity of the hobbyist? (I'm not trying to be an advertisement here, but the stuff works and since we don't have the ability to turn back time, isn't this a safer and more responsible solution?)
 
I understand the biology of bacteria fairly well. If the food source is removed, the bacteria will die, but not before then. Reduced amounts aren't detectable to the bacteria. They are not limited by potential food, but rather by actual availability of food. Since the ammonia is still present but in lesser amounts, there's no detectable impact.

Yes it is--and exposing fish to lethal levels of a toxin doesn't meet the definition of painless for the fish. I'm not sure what 'stuff' you're talking about...I'm simply referring to water changes reducing the levels of ammonia and nitrites.
 
The stuff I was refering to was Seachem's Prime, which is sort of an all purpose toxin converter that is pretty highly regarded in terms of cycle assisting products. It converts ammonia to ammonium, which is NOT toxic to fish yet is still consumable by nitriying bacteria. Additionally, it processes nitrites in a similar fashion.

Seriously, if you had taken the time to read my first post instead of simply flaming at me for only SOMEWHAT differing from your opinion, you would have realized it was my intention to get Jess7 to the place she needs to be more expeditiously AND more safely than simply allowing ammonia to build up in her tank. Additionally, the addition of Prime would have kept her fish more safe even if she was changing water to keep ammonium at zero.

It is really a shame when someone summarily disregards another's opinion without fully comprehending what has been said on even the most surface of levels.
 
Benedict, chill. Nobody flamed you. She disagreed with you. It wasn't personal. I never saw her mention Prime. Personally, I still think you're making some bad calls. I am a huge fan of Prime. I in no way think it is more safe than water changes during a cycle, however. It's an additive. I really prefer subtractive fishkeeping. It's a difference of opinion, see? No one has flamed at you.
 
So, in beginners terms what would be the benefit of using Prime vs. just doing constant water changes be? I don't want to add an chemicals that may endanger him and there will be 3 dwarf frogs in there too.
 
Prime will convert ammonia to ammonium, which is not harmful to your fish. Additionally, it does the same with nitrites. I would strongly suggest you choose this over Ammolock.

I definitely don't want you to interpret what I'm saying as using Prime as a replacement for water changes. Just add it to your ritual. This will give you a little more flexability and keep your betta safer. If you're using it and doing w/c's every other day, you should be able to feel safe with very low ammo levels.

One more big caveat here- Since you are cylcing with only one fish I would suggest you add additional fish very slowly after your cycle is complete. The waste produced by a single betta is very small and will only really 'create' enough bacteria to support it. When you add additional fish, your bacterial populations will have to adjust to support them.
 
Actually, I was told to move 3 Dwarf Frogs I have into that tank, because they were overpopulating a 2.5 gallon I have with a betta which is also cycling. PLEASE DON't GET MAD, I know! :( I got them as a present and they were in a miny betta bowl w/ divider, so I had to move them... Is this Prime stuff east to find?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom