python cleaner

[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...