When can i add plants
- Thread starter Caltus
- Start date
You will want to wait until the end of the cycle. The plants will start to use the ammonia faster than the bacteria thus slowing the cycle down. Add them when you add the fish.
I don't believe it is in your best interests to try to cycle a tank that is intended to be planted. Once the bacteria are established, they compete with the plants for the Ammonia in the water. Eventually, the bacterial colony shrinks in size due to lack of nutrients.
I would recommend STARTING WITH PLANTS, and giving the plants a few weeks to establish themselves. At this point, your plants should be able to utilize all the Ammonia that a reasonably stocked tank can throw at it.
Ammonia is a fertilizer to plants, so a large bacterial colony will work against this.
Review this link:
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_newtank.htm
I would recommend STARTING WITH PLANTS, and giving the plants a few weeks to establish themselves. At this point, your plants should be able to utilize all the Ammonia that a reasonably stocked tank can throw at it.
Ammonia is a fertilizer to plants, so a large bacterial colony will work against this.
Review this link:
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_plant_newtank.htm
Careful Torf,
Chuck makes the note in that article that this method is only really intended for heavily planted, high light aquariums, with CO2 and the like.
Jamz, they're not 'bad' for cycling, per se, but plants will get to the ammonia first, so if you have a heavily planted tank, or are planning one, it's redundant to build up a big bacterial colony, only to starve it by having plants take up the ammonia that the fish are producing. It's not wrong to cycle first, then plant, if anything, it's very prudent, just wastes a bit of time.
You don't want to add plants during a fishless cycle because you want the ammonia to all go to the bacteria. Plus, once you start adding the other ferts that the plants need (PO4, K, traces), algae explosion. This is the biggest reason for not adding plants. Wait until you're cycled, then add.
Do a search for 'elephant' in this forum, yeah, I know it's strange. You should find a really good discussion between Tom Barr and Daveedka (I think) about plants outcompeting algae, and the effect of ammonia. That should help to clarify the issue.
edit: just did the search, surprisingly there were 5 hits for elephant in this forum!
Chuck makes the note in that article that this method is only really intended for heavily planted, high light aquariums, with CO2 and the like.
Jamz, they're not 'bad' for cycling, per se, but plants will get to the ammonia first, so if you have a heavily planted tank, or are planning one, it's redundant to build up a big bacterial colony, only to starve it by having plants take up the ammonia that the fish are producing. It's not wrong to cycle first, then plant, if anything, it's very prudent, just wastes a bit of time.
You don't want to add plants during a fishless cycle because you want the ammonia to all go to the bacteria. Plus, once you start adding the other ferts that the plants need (PO4, K, traces), algae explosion. This is the biggest reason for not adding plants. Wait until you're cycled, then add.
Do a search for 'elephant' in this forum, yeah, I know it's strange. You should find a really good discussion between Tom Barr and Daveedka (I think) about plants outcompeting algae, and the effect of ammonia. That should help to clarify the issue.
edit: just did the search, surprisingly there were 5 hits for elephant in this forum!
Last edited:
Thereis another version of the cycle called the silent cycle. But that requires (as was mentioned) mass quantities of fast growing stem plants, not necessarily rooted plants. And if you are thinking of this, remember that when people say heavily planted, they generally mean hard to see any fish in the tank due to the mass amount of plants. That can be costly at first.
jamzwayne said:
[obiwan] It depends entirely on your own point of view. [/obiwan]
If you are looking out for the best interests of the fish, then adding plants won't harm the process. It will actually help the fish by reducing severely any ammonia spikes.
If you are simply trying to establish a large bacterial colony, then adding plants will stunt the process. Most of the ammonia will go straight to the plants leaving little for the bacteria.
I have found that even a small amount of stem plants and V. dubyana will REALLY soak up the ammonia in the water.
Of course this won't work if you stock heavily from day one.
Edited to add: I am talking about a moderate to brightly lit tank with CO2 injection as well. I would recommend a true fishless cycle in a low light tank.
Last edited:
I agree, add the plants right from the start, cycle or no cycle, heavily planted or not. Even with low light, no C02, and slow growing plants, the plants will not interfere with the cycle. Karen Randall and others actually recommend adding the plants first and waiting a month or more before adding any fish. This gives the plants a chance to get acclamated and growing so when you do add fish, the plants will take care of any ammonia spikes.
If you have 70% of the tank planted with fast growing stem plants, 2 to 3 watts of light per gallon of water and C02 injected, you will never have to worry about the tank cycling at all. I havn't cycled a tank in years, and I don't have "jungles" I just have well planted aquariums.
If you have 70% of the tank planted with fast growing stem plants, 2 to 3 watts of light per gallon of water and C02 injected, you will never have to worry about the tank cycling at all. I havn't cycled a tank in years, and I don't have "jungles" I just have well planted aquariums.
Just add mulm to the substrate and filter and you never have to cycle in the first place!
Works with Marine, FW, brackish tanks, planted, unplanted, Africans etc.
LFS's have been doing this for some 50 years now, I figure someone would catch on, but no, fishless cycling has a nice site that people link to like mad, bacterial concoctions are sold in bottles... these things waste time and cost money and require testing etc.
Mulm is quick, easy and works.
It adds precisely what is missing from an established substrate and filter, live, actively growing bacteria unlike anything in a bottle and does not take 2-3 weeks to cycle and no testing is needed(unless you have nothing better to do or are plain curious).
It's NOT true that you need to "cycle" lower light tanks or non CO2 tanks either any more than a higher light tank.
Nor is it an issue if you use rooted(?) vs stem plants(these also have roots), neither is required, add mulm and perhaps some peat and that will take care of the issues of cycling.
Having few plants may causes issues starting out(use cheap filler plants till the others grow in, eg Hornwort/water sprite etc).
Whether you use water changes and bacteria to export the NO3, or you use plants to remove the NH4 and NO3(they will remove both), the end result is that you do not need to do fishless cycling, unless you have no way of getting fresh mulm and you live far away from any LFS and some how also catch fish locally and you have no other existing tank that has some mulm and and.......well you get the picture, most folks have access to mulm.
I've never understood the popularity of FC, it does not hurt but it does require the person to test to check to see if it's done or not and takes several weeks. I do NOT care to wait especially if I don't have to and I will pass on the testing part also.
The mulm method requires no testing, you can if you wish. FC does not hurt as long as you do not add plants and light till it's completely done.
Then you can add light, CO2 or not etc, and plants, but if you insist, wait till it's done to add the plants. That will not hurt anything.
No, you do not gain anything by having extra NH4 around for the plants vs NO3, you can try this at your own risk BTW, hope you like algae. Small trace amounts can be added in some thriving planted tanks, but most will find algae.
Many people report GW after doing FC if they turn their lights on.
If a tank is not cycled and the plants are also not growing well, then NH4 can cause algae or if it's not all converted to NO3..
The goal is to grow plants, not bacteria. That's the point, the plants circumvent the traditional cycling, they remove the NH4 directly and any NO3 that might be produced by bacteria.
Most plants do fine with the fish waste supplying all the N in the form of NH4 in a non CO2 tank, the needs and growth rate of the plants are fine for fish waste only , but if you increase plant growth say by adding CO2 or Excel, then you need to add more N and adding more NH4 will give you algae, so we use KNO3.
Plants do great on this and it does not cause algae at a wide range.
Plants have lots of bacteria on the roots, surfaces also, the plants will remove all traces of NH4 in most well run planted tanks, even non CO2 tanks.
But if you add NH4 etc, this will cause algae unless it's at very very low amounts. Unless you can kill algae well, I do not suggest you add NH4 with high fish loads, fertilizers(jobes, they have urea and NH4, both are good for inducement of algae) or NHCl2 or 2NH4(SO4) or NH4NO3 etc.
New tank issues and algae can be attributed in large part to this process, adding mulm on the other hand will circumvent this new tank issue, start the tank off nicely from day one and cost nothing nor requires any testing/dosing.
It adds precisely what's missing from an old substrate.
I suppose if you want to waste 3 weeks, like to test, or cannot get mulm for some odd reason, you can do FC and wait.
Still, mulm will solve any cycling issue and is 100% free.
I guess the mulm method needs a site and lots of links to get it as popular as FC, but I still will argue mulm is better for any new tank start up.
I wonder how many GW tanks have been caused by FC? I'd suspect quite a few, I've never had an issue nor heard of one using mulm......
If the tank is already up and running, water changes can remove the NH4 and then a turkey baster can be used to inject mulm into the sub and filter intake etc.
I'll let you all decide which argument is better, FC or mulm, I already know and have for close to 30 years.
Okay, enough on my nagging rant about the merits of mulm and the "evils" of FC
Regards,
Tom Barr
Regards,
Tom Barr
Works with Marine, FW, brackish tanks, planted, unplanted, Africans etc.
LFS's have been doing this for some 50 years now, I figure someone would catch on, but no, fishless cycling has a nice site that people link to like mad, bacterial concoctions are sold in bottles... these things waste time and cost money and require testing etc.
Mulm is quick, easy and works.
It adds precisely what is missing from an established substrate and filter, live, actively growing bacteria unlike anything in a bottle and does not take 2-3 weeks to cycle and no testing is needed(unless you have nothing better to do or are plain curious).
It's NOT true that you need to "cycle" lower light tanks or non CO2 tanks either any more than a higher light tank.
Nor is it an issue if you use rooted(?) vs stem plants(these also have roots), neither is required, add mulm and perhaps some peat and that will take care of the issues of cycling.
Having few plants may causes issues starting out(use cheap filler plants till the others grow in, eg Hornwort/water sprite etc).
Whether you use water changes and bacteria to export the NO3, or you use plants to remove the NH4 and NO3(they will remove both), the end result is that you do not need to do fishless cycling, unless you have no way of getting fresh mulm and you live far away from any LFS and some how also catch fish locally and you have no other existing tank that has some mulm and and.......well you get the picture, most folks have access to mulm.
I've never understood the popularity of FC, it does not hurt but it does require the person to test to check to see if it's done or not and takes several weeks. I do NOT care to wait especially if I don't have to and I will pass on the testing part also.
The mulm method requires no testing, you can if you wish. FC does not hurt as long as you do not add plants and light till it's completely done.
Then you can add light, CO2 or not etc, and plants, but if you insist, wait till it's done to add the plants. That will not hurt anything.
No, you do not gain anything by having extra NH4 around for the plants vs NO3, you can try this at your own risk BTW, hope you like algae. Small trace amounts can be added in some thriving planted tanks, but most will find algae.
Many people report GW after doing FC if they turn their lights on.
If a tank is not cycled and the plants are also not growing well, then NH4 can cause algae or if it's not all converted to NO3..
The goal is to grow plants, not bacteria. That's the point, the plants circumvent the traditional cycling, they remove the NH4 directly and any NO3 that might be produced by bacteria.
Most plants do fine with the fish waste supplying all the N in the form of NH4 in a non CO2 tank, the needs and growth rate of the plants are fine for fish waste only , but if you increase plant growth say by adding CO2 or Excel, then you need to add more N and adding more NH4 will give you algae, so we use KNO3.
Plants do great on this and it does not cause algae at a wide range.
Plants have lots of bacteria on the roots, surfaces also, the plants will remove all traces of NH4 in most well run planted tanks, even non CO2 tanks.
But if you add NH4 etc, this will cause algae unless it's at very very low amounts. Unless you can kill algae well, I do not suggest you add NH4 with high fish loads, fertilizers(jobes, they have urea and NH4, both are good for inducement of algae) or NHCl2 or 2NH4(SO4) or NH4NO3 etc.
New tank issues and algae can be attributed in large part to this process, adding mulm on the other hand will circumvent this new tank issue, start the tank off nicely from day one and cost nothing nor requires any testing/dosing.
It adds precisely what's missing from an old substrate.
I suppose if you want to waste 3 weeks, like to test, or cannot get mulm for some odd reason, you can do FC and wait.
Still, mulm will solve any cycling issue and is 100% free.
I guess the mulm method needs a site and lots of links to get it as popular as FC, but I still will argue mulm is better for any new tank start up.
I wonder how many GW tanks have been caused by FC? I'd suspect quite a few, I've never had an issue nor heard of one using mulm......
If the tank is already up and running, water changes can remove the NH4 and then a turkey baster can be used to inject mulm into the sub and filter intake etc.
I'll let you all decide which argument is better, FC or mulm, I already know and have for close to 30 years.
Okay, enough on my nagging rant about the merits of mulm and the "evils" of FC
Regards,
Tom Barr
Regards,
Tom Barr
Last edited: