Have had my 10 gal tank for a few months. Did the first water change successfully. The second change we had replaced the gravel and rinsed the filter and set back up like last time. Except this time my fish are acting strange and I had lost one a few days ago. The test strips say the nitrites are waaaaayyyh to high. Help.
Nitrites
- Thread starter Tinin2k12
- Start date
Okay. So what happened was, you had a significant amount of good bacteria in the old gravel, so with that removed, your cycle crashed and is resetting itself.
Second, you also rinsed the filter media same change. Did you use tap water or old tank water? Tap water can kill a bit of your good bacteria.
A combination of that crashed your cycle.
So, to get it back going faster and safer for your fish, change 50% of the water every day until nitrites and ammonia are zero.
Second, you also rinsed the filter media same change. Did you use tap water or old tank water? Tap water can kill a bit of your good bacteria.
A combination of that crashed your cycle.
So, to get it back going faster and safer for your fish, change 50% of the water every day until nitrites and ammonia are zero.
With changing the water, you want to change 50% or such weekly, depending on your stock level and tank size. Given its only a 10 gallon, id opt for 50-75% every week. Also vacuum the gravel well each time too.
Use the water you take from the tank to rinse the media in your filter, just swish it around or squeeze it out. Do you use any ceramic pieces or sponge? Or just cartridges? If you just have cartridges, get yourself some ceramic biomedia or some sponge. DO NOT THROW THESE OUT. These are reusable and will house your cycle. If you dont have them, id get them sooner rather than later so they can cycle before you need to replace the cartridge.
If you have these already, ignore this part lol.
Dechlorinator like Seachem Prime are good as they also detoxify any ammonia and nitrite under a certain amount for 48 hours. These can be essential with cycling a tank with minimal losses of your fish.
Do you have live plants? Fast growing plants like hornwort or anacharis are great sponges for excess nutrients in the water and can help ease up some of the burden on your fish while you cycle too
Use the water you take from the tank to rinse the media in your filter, just swish it around or squeeze it out. Do you use any ceramic pieces or sponge? Or just cartridges? If you just have cartridges, get yourself some ceramic biomedia or some sponge. DO NOT THROW THESE OUT. These are reusable and will house your cycle. If you dont have them, id get them sooner rather than later so they can cycle before you need to replace the cartridge.
If you have these already, ignore this part lol.
Dechlorinator like Seachem Prime are good as they also detoxify any ammonia and nitrite under a certain amount for 48 hours. These can be essential with cycling a tank with minimal losses of your fish.
Do you have live plants? Fast growing plants like hornwort or anacharis are great sponges for excess nutrients in the water and can help ease up some of the burden on your fish while you cycle too
I agree with NC except any nitrite of even 0.5 is an emergency! Any is harmful. I rarely advise adding salt but this is the time to do it. Change water as much as you can, back to back 50-90% WCs will help. But add some regular table salt (even iodized is ok). I'm not sure of the dosage, start with a teaspoon & plan to go up from there. Look up "brown blood disease" to get a better idea. Don't goof around on this!
Changing water is often not the best way to deal with nitrite. adding a bit of salt is the best option. You can find out about how to use salt to counteract nitrite in the following thread. https://www.aquariacentral.com/foru...death-traumatized-friend.290537/#post-2972775
Read my post #2 in the above thread. if you need some help with this, you can PM me your email and I will contact you or if you prefer we can use the PM ssytem on the site.
Why are water changes not usually the best route? Nitrite has to work its way out of a fish. This takes about 24 hours. However, if there is still nitrite in the water, you cannot succeed in eliminating it from the fish .
The next thing to understand is that a tank produces a pretty constant amount of ammonia as long as things run well and you are not adding more fish. The cycle is intendted to build up siffienctient bacteria to handle the ammonia a tank makes. What happens is that before the bacteria can multipy enough, the ammonia is going up and up. Then it stops and comes down and becomes 0. This is because you have developed enough bacteria to handle the ammonia. But thisc reates problem number 2, nitrite. This can be worse than ammonia.
While you tank has become safe from ammonia, it is spewing out nitrite and there is nothing to handle it yet. The amount of nitrite created is a direct function of the ammount of ammonia processed. Until one builds up sufficient nitrite oxiding bacteria, you will always have a nitrite reading int the tank. Now, lets suppose you change 50 % of the water and this removes 50% or the nitrite, the remaining 50% will get into fish and keep harming them. However, the act of cutting the ntrite level in half means that nitrite bacteria will reproduce more slowly. The bacteria tend to reproduce when their is exess food- ammonia or nitrite.
However, changing water slows the reproduction process and this means it will take longer for the bacteria to reproduce. This may necessitate more water changes which in turn slow down the build up of the bacteria. Unlike ammonia, nitrite must enter the fish to harm it. Yes ammonia does the most damage when inside the fish but it can also harm gils and burn the fish's "skin." If we add salt (chloride actually) it blocks the nitrite from entering the fish and when it cannot enter, it cannot do any harm. It also means the nitrite already inside the fish will have a chance to be removed naturally over the next day or so,
Then there is the stress on new fish that is caused by many large water changes at the early stages of a tank's existence. So, doing the water change also may mean you are weakening the fish's ability to fight off bad things. We have to change water for ammonia but not for nitrite. And for nitrate we ust either change water or have live plants (these will also consume ammonia).
Consider for a moment the aquaculture industry. Imagine instead of a tank you have a 200,000 gallon heavily stocked pond. There is no way you can change 100,000 gallons multiple times because there is nitrite present. This industry has known for decades the benefits of chloride for dealing with nitrite. If it did not work, the price of farmed fish would be sky high. Moreover, the scientists who do research into nirrite will also tell you there is no point in doing a study if that study does not account for the level of chloride present.
Read my post #2 in the above thread. if you need some help with this, you can PM me your email and I will contact you or if you prefer we can use the PM ssytem on the site.
Why are water changes not usually the best route? Nitrite has to work its way out of a fish. This takes about 24 hours. However, if there is still nitrite in the water, you cannot succeed in eliminating it from the fish .
The next thing to understand is that a tank produces a pretty constant amount of ammonia as long as things run well and you are not adding more fish. The cycle is intendted to build up siffienctient bacteria to handle the ammonia a tank makes. What happens is that before the bacteria can multipy enough, the ammonia is going up and up. Then it stops and comes down and becomes 0. This is because you have developed enough bacteria to handle the ammonia. But thisc reates problem number 2, nitrite. This can be worse than ammonia.
While you tank has become safe from ammonia, it is spewing out nitrite and there is nothing to handle it yet. The amount of nitrite created is a direct function of the ammount of ammonia processed. Until one builds up sufficient nitrite oxiding bacteria, you will always have a nitrite reading int the tank. Now, lets suppose you change 50 % of the water and this removes 50% or the nitrite, the remaining 50% will get into fish and keep harming them. However, the act of cutting the ntrite level in half means that nitrite bacteria will reproduce more slowly. The bacteria tend to reproduce when their is exess food- ammonia or nitrite.
However, changing water slows the reproduction process and this means it will take longer for the bacteria to reproduce. This may necessitate more water changes which in turn slow down the build up of the bacteria. Unlike ammonia, nitrite must enter the fish to harm it. Yes ammonia does the most damage when inside the fish but it can also harm gils and burn the fish's "skin." If we add salt (chloride actually) it blocks the nitrite from entering the fish and when it cannot enter, it cannot do any harm. It also means the nitrite already inside the fish will have a chance to be removed naturally over the next day or so,
Then there is the stress on new fish that is caused by many large water changes at the early stages of a tank's existence. So, doing the water change also may mean you are weakening the fish's ability to fight off bad things. We have to change water for ammonia but not for nitrite. And for nitrate we ust either change water or have live plants (these will also consume ammonia).
Consider for a moment the aquaculture industry. Imagine instead of a tank you have a 200,000 gallon heavily stocked pond. There is no way you can change 100,000 gallons multiple times because there is nitrite present. This industry has known for decades the benefits of chloride for dealing with nitrite. If it did not work, the price of farmed fish would be sky high. Moreover, the scientists who do research into nirrite will also tell you there is no point in doing a study if that study does not account for the level of chloride present.
For anybody interested I have located the article "Nitrite in Fish Ponds" published by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. This used be and may still be working in connection with the University of Florida.
https://srac.tamu.edu/fact-sheets/serve/110
It is about two pages of text. If you read it you will know more about how to handle nitrite than 90%+ of all fish keepers across the globe. It is not hard to understand at all.
https://srac.tamu.edu/fact-sheets/serve/110
It is about two pages of text. If you read it you will know more about how to handle nitrite than 90%+ of all fish keepers across the globe. It is not hard to understand at all.
I will read your article TTA. I am under the impression that, like too high ammonia can inhibit the beneficial bacteria growth, high nitrite would be similar...
OK, I read it (with some skimming) & the article suggests keep sodium as a constant additive to prevent brown blood disease. I am not a fan of that approach in our aquaria, fish farming is different is some ways. I still am not sure why you think changing water is a bad idea. As long as there is "some" nitrite to grow the bacteria...Well, "fish in" cycling can be much more dangerous to fish than "fishless" cycling. Nitrite level doesn't matter without animals, but it does with them in the tank...but, yes, bacteria growth will be slowed.
OK, I read it (with some skimming) & the article suggests keep sodium as a constant additive to prevent brown blood disease. I am not a fan of that approach in our aquaria, fish farming is different is some ways. I still am not sure why you think changing water is a bad idea. As long as there is "some" nitrite to grow the bacteria...Well, "fish in" cycling can be much more dangerous to fish than "fishless" cycling. Nitrite level doesn't matter without animals, but it does with them in the tank...but, yes, bacteria growth will be slowed.
I agree with you Fish'orama. I don't agree with adopting any cues from aquaculture at all... That's like holding a couple of chickens in your back yard, and when there is a question or issue saying well here is what we do in battery cages.
No, this is an aquarium/pond forum, and these fish are pets. It can't be compared to intensive aquaculture at all. In no way shape or form should you permanently salt your tank or pond like they suggest as "an insurance against nitrite problems"
In aqua culture they don't want to change water but we do... that the cycle will take longer is a moot point, once fish have already been added.
No, this is an aquarium/pond forum, and these fish are pets. It can't be compared to intensive aquaculture at all. In no way shape or form should you permanently salt your tank or pond like they suggest as "an insurance against nitrite problems"
In aqua culture they don't want to change water but we do... that the cycle will take longer is a moot point, once fish have already been added.
@ tje loach and fishoram
Let me try to make it easy for you guys. Since you seem a but confused about how to use the information in nitrite article i linked, here is a paper which will explain it much better, in more detail and in terms you (and I) probably cannot understand, but give it a try. It may help show why I chose the pond article to illustrate how to deal with nitrite instead of this: Nitrite influence on fish: a review http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/61325.pdf
F fishorama
here is the danger in skimming rather than reading, you missed this part;
Of course aquaculture and having a fish tank are not the same thing. A fish pond is to make money and is a high density and usually single species proposition. Nothing could be further from a typical tank. But the chemistry and biology involved is the same. The fact that chloride is the best way to deal with nitrite does not care if you apply it to a 10 gallon tank or a 200,000 gallon pond. You still have to cycle a 200,000 gal. fish pond just like you do a 10 gal. tank. The effect of live plants in both systems is similar. And we are not even touching on how public aquariums deal with things. So I would ask folks if they believe that chloride does not block nitrite from being able to cause brown blood disease. if so. please provide some scientific evidence of this.
Where exactly do you think most research into fish related issues is done, who do you think sponors it? If you look at my list of bookmarks, about 80% are links to research papers on topics which directly effect what goes on in our tanks. But almost none of it is serious research into tank issues specifically. It's mostly about aquaculture, fish in the wild or specific fish. It is about the biology and chemistry.
Most hobbyists should thank their lucky stars for there being an aquaculture industry. Especially, since many of the fish in their tanks probably came from the aquaculturing of ornamental fish industry.
There are a lot of fish we keep that are fine with some salt in their water and then there are those who do best with none. I have personally treated a pair of adult discus in a 10 gal. tank which had 2 full 8 ounce measuring cups of salt added to the water. I am not sure, but that might kill a number of sw fish. Bear in mind that ponds tend to contain single species whereas tanks tend to contain multiple species. The specific species involved determines whether or not salt may be tolerated and at what levels.
But you can go back to 2004 and read this thread. Pay the most attention to those posts by RTR who was one of America's legendary hobbyists at that time. https://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/threads/salt-in-water.28953/ Then read RTR on salt in fw tanks here. http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/wiki/The_Salt_of_the_Earth
This article is the one to which I have pointed folks re the question of salt in FW tanks for many years. I defy anybody to find a single post by me in the past 19+ years on any site in which I suggest using salt as a preventative in a tank. In fact. I have consistently done the opposite. As far as i can tell there has not been a better paper for hobbyists to use re salt that the RTR article.
How can one condemn all the info in the nitrite article because it is related to ponds? So you learned nothing about nitrite because the science is applied to a huge pond in which it is never possible to do water changes. I can find an article where they tell you to fill an aquaculture pond with water. Do you conclude that because this was daid about a fish pond we, therefore, should not add water to a tank? That article had a ton of good and accurate information on how to deal with nirite and some folks are going to ignore if because we use tanks not ponds. I scratch my head at this. Please understand that the need to prevent a disaster in a 200,000 gal. aquaculture pond and a fish tank are not the same thing. And I have never ever considered fish as pets. They are not like animals we can hold and touch and who live in the same air as we do. They cannot express affection.
But all of the above is moot. There has not been a reason for doing a fish-in cycle for at least the last almost 25 years since the idea of fishless cycling was born. https://www.cpp.edu/~jskoga/Aquariums/Ammonia.html Back then (Dec 1996) the method was to use household ammonia and drops/gal while today we use ammonium chloride or pure ammonia and an ammonia calculator (this was the final methodoly after the intermediate "dose and test" method). I have likely cycled 250 filters over the past two decades which went into half as many tanks. (I used to sell sh events and would set up tanks with cycled filters. Before I got too old, I used to do 8-10 summer tanks outside and used my farm to get the filters cycled.) The only fish-in cycle I have done was in my very first tank in Jan 01, before I had a light bulb go on above my head and I wondered if one could use ammonia rather than fish to cycle. Thus began my foray into researching various fish topics which ultimately led me to Google Scholar as my main source of information.
So those who want to continue harming or killing their fish by doing a needless fish-in cycle and then refuse to use salt to prevent nitrite damage can go on doing so and I will continue to post what I do as it helps keep the fish safe. The choice of what we learn and how we use it is, as always, our choice.
Some of the replies in this thread annoyed me enough that I am going to break a cardinal rule and offer folks a link to one of my articles written on another site which would be considered a competitor to this one. I am not suggesting anybody join that site nor leave this one, but I do not wish to reproduce the article here but would like folks to be able to read it. It was the second of a two article series I wrote on "Rescuing A Fish In Cycle Gone Wild" The link is to part II https://www.fishforums.net/threads/rescuing-a-fish-in-cycle-gone-wild-part-il.433778/ I realize site mods may feel compelled to delete the link to another similar site. I will understand it they do so. Your should note that I reference the RTR salt article in the link which was written in 2014. You can decide about the information presented and if you want to take advantage of it or reject it. I do not care as in my writing it I have done my best to help fish keepers while helping to protect fish.
I will leave folks with the following from the article to which I linked the loach and fishorama at the outset of this post:
Let me try to make it easy for you guys. Since you seem a but confused about how to use the information in nitrite article i linked, here is a paper which will explain it much better, in more detail and in terms you (and I) probably cannot understand, but give it a try. It may help show why I chose the pond article to illustrate how to deal with nitrite instead of this: Nitrite influence on fish: a review http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/61325.pdf
F fishorama
here is the danger in skimming rather than reading, you missed this part;
This is why aquaculture chooses to us sodium chloride. Does anybody really think the aquaculture industry would use any methodology that would harm their fish, slow their growth or otherwise create issues which could result in the loss of what can be $100,000s?????
Of course aquaculture and having a fish tank are not the same thing. A fish pond is to make money and is a high density and usually single species proposition. Nothing could be further from a typical tank. But the chemistry and biology involved is the same. The fact that chloride is the best way to deal with nitrite does not care if you apply it to a 10 gallon tank or a 200,000 gallon pond. You still have to cycle a 200,000 gal. fish pond just like you do a 10 gal. tank. The effect of live plants in both systems is similar. And we are not even touching on how public aquariums deal with things. So I would ask folks if they believe that chloride does not block nitrite from being able to cause brown blood disease. if so. please provide some scientific evidence of this.
Where exactly do you think most research into fish related issues is done, who do you think sponors it? If you look at my list of bookmarks, about 80% are links to research papers on topics which directly effect what goes on in our tanks. But almost none of it is serious research into tank issues specifically. It's mostly about aquaculture, fish in the wild or specific fish. It is about the biology and chemistry.
Most hobbyists should thank their lucky stars for there being an aquaculture industry. Especially, since many of the fish in their tanks probably came from the aquaculturing of ornamental fish industry.
There are a lot of fish we keep that are fine with some salt in their water and then there are those who do best with none. I have personally treated a pair of adult discus in a 10 gal. tank which had 2 full 8 ounce measuring cups of salt added to the water. I am not sure, but that might kill a number of sw fish. Bear in mind that ponds tend to contain single species whereas tanks tend to contain multiple species. The specific species involved determines whether or not salt may be tolerated and at what levels.
But you can go back to 2004 and read this thread. Pay the most attention to those posts by RTR who was one of America's legendary hobbyists at that time. https://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/threads/salt-in-water.28953/ Then read RTR on salt in fw tanks here. http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/wiki/The_Salt_of_the_Earth
This article is the one to which I have pointed folks re the question of salt in FW tanks for many years. I defy anybody to find a single post by me in the past 19+ years on any site in which I suggest using salt as a preventative in a tank. In fact. I have consistently done the opposite. As far as i can tell there has not been a better paper for hobbyists to use re salt that the RTR article.
How can one condemn all the info in the nitrite article because it is related to ponds? So you learned nothing about nitrite because the science is applied to a huge pond in which it is never possible to do water changes. I can find an article where they tell you to fill an aquaculture pond with water. Do you conclude that because this was daid about a fish pond we, therefore, should not add water to a tank? That article had a ton of good and accurate information on how to deal with nirite and some folks are going to ignore if because we use tanks not ponds. I scratch my head at this. Please understand that the need to prevent a disaster in a 200,000 gal. aquaculture pond and a fish tank are not the same thing. And I have never ever considered fish as pets. They are not like animals we can hold and touch and who live in the same air as we do. They cannot express affection.
But all of the above is moot. There has not been a reason for doing a fish-in cycle for at least the last almost 25 years since the idea of fishless cycling was born. https://www.cpp.edu/~jskoga/Aquariums/Ammonia.html Back then (Dec 1996) the method was to use household ammonia and drops/gal while today we use ammonium chloride or pure ammonia and an ammonia calculator (this was the final methodoly after the intermediate "dose and test" method). I have likely cycled 250 filters over the past two decades which went into half as many tanks. (I used to sell sh events and would set up tanks with cycled filters. Before I got too old, I used to do 8-10 summer tanks outside and used my farm to get the filters cycled.) The only fish-in cycle I have done was in my very first tank in Jan 01, before I had a light bulb go on above my head and I wondered if one could use ammonia rather than fish to cycle. Thus began my foray into researching various fish topics which ultimately led me to Google Scholar as my main source of information.
So those who want to continue harming or killing their fish by doing a needless fish-in cycle and then refuse to use salt to prevent nitrite damage can go on doing so and I will continue to post what I do as it helps keep the fish safe. The choice of what we learn and how we use it is, as always, our choice.
Some of the replies in this thread annoyed me enough that I am going to break a cardinal rule and offer folks a link to one of my articles written on another site which would be considered a competitor to this one. I am not suggesting anybody join that site nor leave this one, but I do not wish to reproduce the article here but would like folks to be able to read it. It was the second of a two article series I wrote on "Rescuing A Fish In Cycle Gone Wild" The link is to part II https://www.fishforums.net/threads/rescuing-a-fish-in-cycle-gone-wild-part-il.433778/ I realize site mods may feel compelled to delete the link to another similar site. I will understand it they do so. Your should note that I reference the RTR salt article in the link which was written in 2014. You can decide about the information presented and if you want to take advantage of it or reject it. I do not care as in my writing it I have done my best to help fish keepers while helping to protect fish.
I will leave folks with the following from the article to which I linked the loach and fishorama at the outset of this post:
I cannot write yet again why there is a difference between doing a big water changes in a new tank v.s. an established one. I can only hope that most hobbyists have observed the difference in the behavior of their fish during water changes early on and those they have done several months or more later.
