Re: How long does it take to seed a filter in an established tank?

[Lady Samsara]

"Michael" > wrote in message >...
> I'm rebuilding my aquarium to get rid of the potting soil (huge mistake). I
> washed my filter out with tap water (not sure if that destroyed my bacteria
> or not) and put it in my neighbor's tank to seed it with bacteria. It's a
> little corner filter that is submerged in the tank, stuck to the side. It's
> been in his tank for 3 days now. I know the bacteria double in 12 hours, so
> my question is does it have enough bacteria in it to put back in my tank
> once I have it set up (hopefully tomorrow)? I plan to add one baby fish
> from my fish pond outside to my tank to cycle the tank. The babies are
> about 2-3" long so I expect one to be enough to cycle, after which I'll put
> him back in the fish pond.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael

I asked this question here a few weeks (Back up filter for hospital
tank). The consensus was about 3 weeks.

[Michael]

> > I'm rebuilding my aquarium to get rid of the potting soil (huge
mistake). I
> > washed my filter out with tap water (not sure if that destroyed my
bacteria
> > or not) and put it in my neighbor's tank to seed it with bacteria. It's
a
> > little corner filter that is submerged in the tank, stuck to the side.
It's
> > been in his tank for 3 days now. I know the bacteria double in 12
hours, so
> > my question is does it have enough bacteria in it to put back in my tank
> > once I have it set up (hopefully tomorrow)? I plan to add one baby fish
> > from my fish pond outside to my tank to cycle the tank. The babies are
> > about 2-3" long so I expect one to be enough to cycle, after which I'll
put
> > him back in the fish pond.
>
> I asked this question here a few weeks (Back up filter for hospital
> tank). The consensus was about 3 weeks.

That's not possible, it's possible to cycle a tank fishless in 3 weeks. By
putting a filter in an established tank it should be much shorter. I'm
thinking even just a few days is enough to start a bacteria colony in the
filter..

[NetMax]

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
> > > I'm rebuilding my aquarium to get rid of the potting soil (huge
> mistake). I
> > > washed my filter out with tap water (not sure if that destroyed my
> bacteria
> > > or not) and put it in my neighbor's tank to seed it with bacteria.
It's
> a
> > > little corner filter that is submerged in the tank, stuck to the
side.
> It's
> > > been in his tank for 3 days now. I know the bacteria double in 12
> hours, so
> > > my question is does it have enough bacteria in it to put back in my
tank
> > > once I have it set up (hopefully tomorrow)? I plan to add one baby
fish
> > > from my fish pond outside to my tank to cycle the tank. The babies
are
> > > about 2-3" long so I expect one to be enough to cycle, after which
I'll
> put
> > > him back in the fish pond.
> >
> > I asked this question here a few weeks (Back up filter for hospital
> > tank). The consensus was about 3 weeks.
>
> That's not possible, it's possible to cycle a tank fishless in 3 weeks.
By
> putting a filter in an established tank it should be much shorter. I'm
> thinking even just a few days is enough to start a bacteria colony in
the
> filter..

I don't think you two are talking about quite the same thing. If you
were changing filters, and had a new filter running at the same time as
the old, within 3 weeks, the new filter would be expected to have enough
bacteria to quickly adjust itself to the load of an entire aquarium (by
removing the old filter, or moving the new filter to a different set-up).
This assumes a percentage of the bacteria (ie: 50%) which would be in the
filters, would have become attached to the new filter media. This
assumes already cycled tanks, and no, or minimal cycling to take place
after. For a hospital tank, there would probably be no cycling needed as
the biological capacity would exceed the load, so some bacteria will
actually die-off. Although there is no real hard data to support it,
this all sounds reasonable to me.

If you want to seed a filter to prepare it for cycling, this takes a few
minutes. Take some aged media and squeeze it into the new filter's
media. If this new media was actually already aged (slime coated) then
I'd expect the seeding to be even more successful. With enough seeding,
you might find cycling to almost become a non-issue, measured in days if
you are starting with a low fish-load (as you are). hth

NetMax

[Lady Samsara]

"Michael" > wrote in message >...
> > > I'm rebuilding my aquarium to get rid of the potting soil (huge
> mistake). I
> > > washed my filter out with tap water (not sure if that destroyed my
> bacteria
> > > or not) and put it in my neighbor's tank to seed it with bacteria. It's
> a
> > > little corner filter that is submerged in the tank, stuck to the side.
> It's
> > > been in his tank for 3 days now. I know the bacteria double in 12
> hours, so
> > > my question is does it have enough bacteria in it to put back in my tank
> > > once I have it set up (hopefully tomorrow)? I plan to add one baby fish
> > > from my fish pond outside to my tank to cycle the tank. The babies are
> > > about 2-3" long so I expect one to be enough to cycle, after which I'll
> put
> > > him back in the fish pond.
> >
> > I asked this question here a few weeks (Back up filter for hospital
> > tank). The consensus was about 3 weeks.
>
> That's not possible, it's possible to cycle a tank fishless in 3 weeks. By
> putting a filter in an established tank it should be much shorter. I'm
> thinking even just a few days is enough to start a bacteria colony in the
> filter..

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Alan Silver]

In article >, NetMax
> writes
>I don't think you two are talking about quite the same thing. If you
>were changing filters, and had a new filter running at the same time as
>the old, within 3 weeks, the new filter would be expected to have
>enough bacteria to quickly adjust itself to the load of an entire
>aquarium (by removing the old filter, or moving the new filter to a
>different set-up). This assumes a percentage of the bacteria (ie: 50%)
>which would be in the filters, would have become attached to the new
>filter media. This assumes already cycled tanks, and no, or minimal
>cycling to take place after. For a hospital tank, there would probably
>be no cycling needed as the biological capacity would exceed the load,
>so some bacteria will actually die-off. Although there is no real hard
>data to support it, this all sounds reasonable to me.
>
>If you want to seed a filter to prepare it for cycling, this takes a
>few minutes. Take some aged media and squeeze it into the new filter's
>media. If this new media was actually already aged (slime coated) then
>I'd expect the seeding to be even more successful. With enough
>seeding, you might find cycling to almost become a non-issue, measured
>in days if you are starting with a low fish-load (as you are). hth

You've confused me !!

What do you mean by the last paragraph ? You say "prepare for cycling",
which sounds like you still have to cycle the tank afterwards. Surely
you don't get a filter full of bacteria that quickly ? Or did I miss
something ?

--
Alan Silver

[NetMax]

"Alan Silver"
> wrote
in message ...
> In article >, NetMax
> > writes
> >I don't think you two are talking about quite the same thing. If you
> >were changing filters, and had a new filter running at the same time
as
> >the old, within 3 weeks, the new filter would be expected to have
> >enough bacteria to quickly adjust itself to the load of an entire
> >aquarium (by removing the old filter, or moving the new filter to a
> >different set-up). This assumes a percentage of the bacteria (ie: 50%)
> >which would be in the filters, would have become attached to the new
> >filter media. This assumes already cycled tanks, and no, or minimal
> >cycling to take place after. For a hospital tank, there would
probably
> >be no cycling needed as the biological capacity would exceed the load,
> >so some bacteria will actually die-off. Although there is no real hard
> >data to support it, this all sounds reasonable to me.
> >
> >If you want to seed a filter to prepare it for cycling, this takes a
> >few minutes. Take some aged media and squeeze it into the new
filter's
> >media. If this new media was actually already aged (slime coated)
then
> >I'd expect the seeding to be even more successful. With enough
> >seeding, you might find cycling to almost become a non-issue, measured
> >in days if you are starting with a low fish-load (as you are). hth
>
> You've confused me !!
>
> What do you mean by the last paragraph ? You say "prepare for cycling",
> which sounds like you still have to cycle the tank afterwards. Surely
> you don't get a filter full of bacteria that quickly ? Or did I miss
> something ?

Yes, you would still cycle afterwords, but by seeding the filter with the
right bacteria, you significantly reduce the process, to as much as
nothing.

The term 'cycling' is to wait until the waste processing capability
(typically done by the bacteria) of a tank matches the waste generating
capability of the bio-load (typically fish). The waste generating
capability has a direct proportion to the amount of food being put into
the tank. Cycling is typically declared complete when ammonia & nitrites
have become un-measurable by common test kits.

In a lab, nitrosomonas (which convert ammonia to nitrite) doubles
population every 7 hours, and nitrobacter (which converts nitrite to
nitrate) doubles every 13 hours, so I use 24 hours as a conservative
figure. It's an exponential curve, so very little of the right bacteria
will greatly accelerate the process of cycling. For example in less than
a week, your bio-capability could jump from 2 fish to over a hundred, but
it would take 3 or 4 weeks to get to 2 fish from nothing. Seeding with
the right bacteria (type, and sub-species which already likes your water
parameters) will reduce your cycling time to, in some cases, zero, and at
the other extreme, a week or two. In average cases, it's sufficient to
just decrease the feeding for the first few days, and the cycling will be
complete. Cycling is something done on the first tank in a home.
Cycling is usually a non-issue with subsequent tanks due to the
cross-seeding we now know how to do, and subsequent tanks usually start
with lower fish-loads (and are less well fed).

NetMax

> --
> Alan Silver
>

[Alan Silver]

In article >, NetMax
> writes

<Snipped all the excellent description of cycling>

>Seeding with the right bacteria (type, and sub-species which already
>likes your water parameters) will reduce your cycling time to, in some
>cases, zero, and at the other extreme, a week or two.

Right, I think the above bit is the crux of my confusion. I understand
cycling and have done a few fishless cycles, mainly with ammonium
bicarbonate because until now I never had an old tank going when the new
one was cycling. With the amm.bic. it took a week or so to get the
levels to a point where you could call the tank cycled.

With my new tank, I put the new filter on my old tank and was told to
leave it 2-3 weeks for the bacteria to grow. Your post implied that this
could sometimes be almost immediate, sometimes a week or two. My
confusion was about this variation. If it can be done instantly, why am
I sitting waiting for weeks (apart from the obvious fact that I haven't
actually got the new tank yet !!).

Thanx for any further clarification.

--
Alan Silver

[NetMax]

"RedForeman ©®" > wrote in message
...
> > >Seeding with the right bacteria (type, and sub-species which already
> > >likes your water parameters) will reduce your cycling time to, in
some
> > >cases, zero, and at the other extreme, a week or two.
> >
> > Right, I think the above bit is the crux of my confusion. I
understand
> > cycling and have done a few fishless cycles, mainly with ammonium
> > bicarbonate because until now I never had an old tank going when the
new
> > one was cycling. With the amm.bic. it took a week or so to get the
> > levels to a point where you could call the tank cycled.
> >
> > With my new tank, I put the new filter on my old tank and was told to
> > leave it 2-3 weeks for the bacteria to grow. Your post implied that
this
> > could sometimes be almost immediate, sometimes a week or two. My
> > confusion was about this variation. If it can be done instantly, why
am
> > I sitting waiting for weeks (apart from the obvious fact that I
haven't
> > actually got the new tank yet !!).

If you are waiting for the bacteria to slowly migrate over to the new
filter through the water, then 2-3 weeks sounds reasonable. Remember
that this bacteria coats surfaces, and is not in any great numbers in the
water column. If you take the old filter media and stuff it into the new
filter, then you are good to go, with some cautions for a few days. If
you squeeze the old filter into your new filter, then you have seeded it,
greatly improving (decreasing) your cycling time.

> I was waiting for the answer to come thru too, but trying not to
confuse the
> issue, I tore my tank down recently and only kept 5g from a 29g tank,
the
> water the fish were in, and when I set it back up, 3 hrs later, I just
added
> water from the hose, put in the dechlor, added the filter, ran it for
4-5
> hours, added the fish back in, no ill effects...
>
> Also, recently set up a 10g, put plants in as I didn't have the fish
yet,
> and the filter had been used on another tank that was used but empty...
It
> had plants, and took 3 weeks before ammonia was gone... on my 29, it
was
> gone in 4 hours.... never will understand cycling in it's fullest....

Lots of factors at work. The bacteria coats your hoses, heater, glass,
gravel etc etc. The lower the pH, the less active your bacteria will be.
The more plants, the less bacteria, as they compete for the same ammonia.
If only 1/2 the ammonia is available for your nitrosomonas, then the next
bacterias (nitrobacter/nitrospira) will have half as much nitrite to live
off of. Nitrifying bacteria exist in the air. The hypothesis is that in
any area of concentrated bodies of bio-loaded water (fish-rooms, LFS,
fish farm hangars etc) or during exposure to the air (tank teardowns)
that there is so much in the air, that cycling is greatly abbreviated.
I've never seen data to support this, but it makes some sense, as the
initial seed to cycle is sometimes just what falls from the air.

NetMax

[NetMax]

"Lady Samsara" > wrote in message
om...
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Alan Silver"
> > >
wrote
> > in message ...
> > > In article >, NetMax
> > > > writes
> > > >I don't think you two are talking about quite the same thing. If
you
> > > >were changing filters, and had a new filter running at the same
time
> > as
> > > >the old, within 3 weeks, the new filter would be expected to have
> > > >enough bacteria to quickly adjust itself to the load of an entire
> > > >aquarium (by removing the old filter, or moving the new filter to
a
> > > >different set-up). This assumes a percentage of the bacteria (ie:
50%)
> > > >which would be in the filters, would have become attached to the
new
> > > >filter media. This assumes already cycled tanks, and no, or
minimal
> > > >cycling to take place after. For a hospital tank, there would
> > probably
> > > >be no cycling needed as the biological capacity would exceed the
load,
> > > >so some bacteria will actually die-off. Although there is no real
hard
> > > >data to support it, this all sounds reasonable to me.
> > > >
> > > >If you want to seed a filter to prepare it for cycling, this takes
a
> > > >few minutes. Take some aged media and squeeze it into the new
> > filter's
> > > >media. If this new media was actually already aged (slime coated)
> > then
> > > >I'd expect the seeding to be even more successful. With enough
> > > >seeding, you might find cycling to almost become a non-issue,
measured
> > > >in days if you are starting with a low fish-load (as you are).
hth
> > >
> > > You've confused me !!
> > >
> > > What do you mean by the last paragraph ? You say "prepare for
cycling",
> > > which sounds like you still have to cycle the tank afterwards.
Surely
> > > you don't get a filter full of bacteria that quickly ? Or did I
miss
> > > something ?
> >
> > Yes, you would still cycle afterwords, but by seeding the filter with
the
> > right bacteria, you significantly reduce the process, to as much as
> > nothing.
> >
> > The term 'cycling' is to wait until the waste processing capability
> > (typically done by the bacteria) of a tank matches the waste
generating
> > capability of the bio-load (typically fish). The waste generating
> > capability has a direct proportion to the amount of food being put
into
> > the tank. Cycling is typically declared complete when ammonia &
nitrites
> > have become un-measurable by common test kits.
> >
> > In a lab, nitrosomonas (which convert ammonia to nitrite) doubles
> > population every 7 hours, and nitrobacter (which converts nitrite to
> > nitrate) doubles every 13 hours, so I use 24 hours as a conservative
> > figure. It's an exponential curve, so very little of the right
bacteria
> > will greatly accelerate the process of cycling. For example in less
than
> > a week, your bio-capability could jump from 2 fish to over a hundred,
but
> > it would take 3 or 4 weeks to get to 2 fish from nothing. Seeding
with
> > the right bacteria (type, and sub-species which already likes your
water
> > parameters) will reduce your cycling time to, in some cases, zero,
and at
> > the other extreme, a week or two. In average cases, it's sufficient
to
> > just decrease the feeding for the first few days, and the cycling
will be
> > complete. Cycling is something done on the first tank in a home.
> > Cycling is usually a non-issue with subsequent tanks due to the
> > cross-seeding we now know how to do, and subsequent tanks usually
start
> > with lower fish-loads (and are less well fed).
> >
> > NetMax
> >
> > > --
> > > Alan Silver
> > >
> Might I ask a question along the same lines as this post? I am
> planning on cycling a 2 gallon tank for my Betta. Could I seed a
> sponge filter in my main tank for 24 hours, place it in the 2 gallon
> and expect it to be almost cycled? I am also changing decorations in
> the main tank and can spare an ornament and plastic plants, as well as
> some gravel, to speed along the process. The 2 galon uses an UGF, so
> how long should I keep the sponge filter in? This post got me
> thinking...as I was planning on doing a fishless cycle.
>
> I will be happy when I finally get all these facts down!! Thank you!

If I was fishless cycling a UGF in a 2g tank, I would start the UGF
running, squeeze a used sponge filter into the 2g until the water was
murky brown, wait a few hours and then drop in some ammonia (to about
5ppm). Then measure when the ammonia was zero (ie: 24 hours) and NO2 was
zero (ie: another 48 hours).

If I was just cycling (which is what I would do for this application), I
would do the same thing, but without ammonia and just add the fish. With
these proportions, it's likely that the squeezings from a used filter
sponge would exceed the amount of bacteria needed, so it would only take
a few days for things to settle down. It wouldn't hurt to include an
ornament, some gravel and plastic plants as well, but might be over-kill.

These are just my estimations from my limited personal experience and
readings, so ymmv.
NetMax

[Alan Silver]

In article >, NetMax
> writes
>> > With my new tank, I put the new filter on my old tank and was told to
>> > leave it 2-3 weeks for the bacteria to grow. Your post implied that
>this
>> > could sometimes be almost immediate, sometimes a week or two. My
>> > confusion was about this variation. If it can be done instantly, why
>am
>> > I sitting waiting for weeks (apart from the obvious fact that I
>haven't
>> > actually got the new tank yet !!).
>
>If you are waiting for the bacteria to slowly migrate over to the new
>filter through the water, then 2-3 weeks sounds reasonable. Remember
>that this bacteria coats surfaces, and is not in any great numbers in
>the water column. If you take the old filter media and stuff it into
>the new filter, then you are good to go, with some cautions for a few
>days. If you squeeze the old filter into your new filter, then you
>have seeded it, greatly improving (decreasing) your cycling time.

I'm not sure if I made it clear that I'm actually *running* the new
filter on the old tank. If so, surely it wouldn't be any faster putting
the new filter medium in the old filter. The same water is going through
both filters at the moment.

--
Alan Silver

[NetMax]

"Alan Silver"
> wrote
in message ...
> In article >, NetMax
> > writes
>
> I'm not sure if I made it clear that I'm actually *running* the new
> filter on the old tank. If so, surely it wouldn't be any faster putting
> the new filter medium in the old filter. The same water is going
through
> both filters at the moment.

I might have lost the gist of the original post as well ;~). For
example, you have an AquaClear 200 running on a tank, with well aged
filter media. You bring home a brand new AC200 filter, swap the old
media for the new media, and install the new filter/old media on a new
tank.

The original tank, now running new filter media in an aged filter box is
still basically cycled (assuming the tank is not overloaded, and it
potentially will have a tiny burp in ammonia). Feed sparingly for a few
days.

The new tank, now running an old grubby filter media in a new filter box,
is basically cycled (assuming your tank load is not more than 50% of the
original tank's bio-load). There is a potential burp in ammonia. Feed
sparingly for a few days.

Variations on this theme, i) always run your original tank with two
sponge filters and transfer one to any new filter box as required, ii)
cut both new & old filter sponges in half, so both filter boxes get a
clean (sterile) half and a grubby bacteria coated half.

Does that help?

NetMax

> Alan Silver
>

[Alan Silver]

In article >, NetMax
> writes
>I might have lost the gist of the original post as well ;~). For
>example, you have an AquaClear 200 running on a tank, with well aged
>filter media. You bring home a brand new AC200 filter, swap the old
>media for the new media, and install the new filter/old media on a new
>tank.
>
>The original tank, now running new filter media in an aged filter box
>is still basically cycled (assuming the tank is not overloaded, and it
>potentially will have a tiny burp in ammonia). Feed sparingly for a
>few days.

So your old tank is now cycled on the basis of bacteria on the glass,
gravel, etc. You've lost a big group of bacteria that were on the filter
media, but if the tank is not overloaded that's no problem.

Correct ?

>The new tank, now running an old grubby filter media in a new filter
>box, is basically cycled (assuming your tank load is not more than 50%
>of the original tank's bio-load). There is a potential burp in
>ammonia. Feed sparingly for a few days.

New tank has a filter that thinks it's in a fully cycled tank. The
filter media is full of bacteria which soon spread to the rest of the
tank.

Correct ?

>Variations on this theme, i) always run your original tank with two
>sponge filters and transfer one to any new filter box as required, ii)
>cut both new & old filter sponges in half, so both filter boxes get a
>clean (sterile) half and a grubby bacteria coated half.

How about if I put a brand new filter on an old tank, in conjunction
with the old filter(s). How long would the new filter need for the
bacteria to grow to the point where I can put it on a new tank and
consider the new tank already cycled ?

Ball park figure obviously, it would depend on specifics. Is this your
almost immediate case, or is this a 2-3 week case ?

>Does that help?

Sure does ;-) Thanx

--
Alan Silver