In fishless cycling, the total amount of ammonia is greater than that available from a fishless cycle. However, you don't just pour it all in at once, and specific levels are the goal--while in cycling with a fish, the ammonia levels can far exceed the goals of fishless cycling if regular, preventative water changes are not done. The size of the bacteria colonies established in fishless cycling is greater than a full load of fish, but doesn't develop any faster than from cycling with fish. The benefit of fishless cycling is not that it happens faster, but that no fish are killed or injured during the process. If no seed media is used, the time needed for cycling can be close to the same, no matter which route you go. The caveat--cycling with fish means that fish must be added gradually, while the tank can be fully stocked after a fishless cycle. However, if a fishlessly cycled tank is stocked with 5 fish immediately, and then 2 more are added a month leter, there will still be a mini-cycle.
Water Testing
- Thread starter Cribbinator
- Start date
so then yes, there are more bacteria in the tank after a fishless cycle than after a fishy cycle BECAUSE you can add more ammonia. and so yes, that means more bacteria grows faster, because it has more food to eat because you're not worried about killing your fish. whereas in a fishy cycle, not as much bacteria grows as quickly because there's not enough ammonia to eat, so you have to add one fish at a time or so. so it can cope with the change in ammonia levels.
it never says add the ammonia all at once. in fact, there's a link there to tomgriffins website which has the details necesary to do a fishless cycle, thats why the link is there by the summary.
it never says add the ammonia all at once. in fact, there's a link there to tomgriffins website which has the details necesary to do a fishless cycle, thats why the link is there by the summary.
well then why is there more bacteria in the tank after a fishless cycle than after a fishy cycle?
Because there is more ammonia provided over the full course of the cycle process. The growth rate has nothing to do with the final colony size.
Look at it this way. If you have 2 rabbits, and give one twice as much food as it can eat each day (ie, half the food is leftover), and one is given precisely the amount of food it needs each day, will one grow faster than the other? Of course not--they are both getting the same amount of food, and grow at the same rate. The bacteria are the same in this fashion. With rabbits, of course there is a set size they can reach, but with bacteria, given more time, the colony size can double if there is food available, right? In the fish cycle, the amount of food is limited--a given number/size/species of fish only produce X amount of waste, so the bacteria colony develops to the point where it consumes X amount of waste. The bacteria keep dividing, but those that don't get food die off. The rate of growth--ie, how many new bacteria are produced each hour--is the same for a fishless setup, but the number of bacteria that survive is greater because there is more ammonia.
Look at it this way. If you have 2 rabbits, and give one twice as much food as it can eat each day (ie, half the food is leftover), and one is given precisely the amount of food it needs each day, will one grow faster than the other? Of course not--they are both getting the same amount of food, and grow at the same rate. The bacteria are the same in this fashion. With rabbits, of course there is a set size they can reach, but with bacteria, given more time, the colony size can double if there is food available, right? In the fish cycle, the amount of food is limited--a given number/size/species of fish only produce X amount of waste, so the bacteria colony develops to the point where it consumes X amount of waste. The bacteria keep dividing, but those that don't get food die off. The rate of growth--ie, how many new bacteria are produced each hour--is the same for a fishless setup, but the number of bacteria that survive is greater because there is more ammonia.
so that means that the colony doesnt grow as large as fast as it would in fishless cycling because there isnt enough food. like i said.
The growth rate is the same. The survival rate is the same up to the point where all available ammonia is being processed. There is a difference between growth rate and survival--the time needed for bacteria to divide does not change based on the amount of food available.
if the colony doubles. then half of it dies b/c it has no food. it's not growing. its staying the same.
if the colony doubles and lives because it has food. it's growing.
the website is for people that dont understand anything about fish, its general, and it provides summaries of the options available. if they choose that option, they can click the link to take them to a detailed plan, and then the plan will work to their purpose. there is no need to be so picky about the difference between growth and survival, because most people see a colony doubling and living as growth, and a colondy doubling then having half of it die off as NOT growing.
if you really think its going to make a huge difference in the outcome of anyones fish success, i'll change it, but i dont see how it could possibly be a problem.
if the colony doubles and lives because it has food. it's growing.
the website is for people that dont understand anything about fish, its general, and it provides summaries of the options available. if they choose that option, they can click the link to take them to a detailed plan, and then the plan will work to their purpose. there is no need to be so picky about the difference between growth and survival, because most people see a colony doubling and living as growth, and a colondy doubling then having half of it die off as NOT growing.
if you really think its going to make a huge difference in the outcome of anyones fish success, i'll change it, but i dont see how it could possibly be a problem.
Last edited:
Personally, I haven't noticed fishless cycling to be any faster than cycling with fish. I also haven't noticed a lot of difference in the amount of time it takes to fishlessly cycle a tank dosed daily to 3 ppm vs. a tank dosed to 4 or 5 ppm. Once a population of bacteria able to process 3 ppm in a day exists, the amount of growth needed in the bacterial population to process 4 ppm isn't that great, proportionally speaking.
As long as there is any level of ammonia in excess of what the existing bacteria can consume, they will mulitply. It doesn't seem to matter if the extra ammonia is in a concentration of .5 ppm or 3 ppm.
What really seems to take time is the growth of the second stage (nitrite consuming) bacteria, in part because they're dependent on the first stage bacteria to start producing nitrite. There was some talk here a while back about dosing the tank initially with both ammonia and nitrite, but I don't recall ever seeing results of that effort.
HTH,
Jim
As long as there is any level of ammonia in excess of what the existing bacteria can consume, they will mulitply. It doesn't seem to matter if the extra ammonia is in a concentration of .5 ppm or 3 ppm.
What really seems to take time is the growth of the second stage (nitrite consuming) bacteria, in part because they're dependent on the first stage bacteria to start producing nitrite. There was some talk here a while back about dosing the tank initially with both ammonia and nitrite, but I don't recall ever seeing results of that effort.
HTH,
Jim
how would one go about dosing the tank with nitrite? would you just get it from another tank that is high in nitrites? thats an interesting idea.. would make for a fun experiment.
