A new tank without cycling [Archive]

Jim Morcombe

January 2nd 07, 04:29 AM

A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".

I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.

Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.

I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.

The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.

Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
established in the tank.

With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
establishes itself rather than building up.

When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.

Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 2nd 07, 07:05 AM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
> I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
> without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>
> I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
> is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.

Same here. There is no reason to lose fish, and an understanding on the
nitrogen cycle makes it easy. Plant life is an aid as well, of course, and
it loaves all forms on N, including NH3, NO2 as well as NO3.

I dump in gunk at times as well, it looks murky, but it gets and bacteria
into the tank and will clear soon enough.

Starting with fry is great as well as you start with a low bioload and build
up. I currently have rainbowfish fry in a tank and started that with new
fish and some seeding, and they have done very well.

I like all fish, and all types can be fun and 'valuable' in their own way. I
don't think much of the idea of trash or disposable fish.

> Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
> their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
> this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
> there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
>
> I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
> am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
> of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
> water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
> tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
> clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>
> The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
> the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
> gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>
> Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
> of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
> established in the tank.
>
> With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
> needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
> establishes itself rather than building up.
>
> When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
> don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
> seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
> water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
> the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
> water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>
> Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
> scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.

nut

January 2nd 07, 03:12 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank
> that I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new
> tank without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".

Hardy fish, not "rubbish" fish... and i didn't see anyone being daft enough
to say it's impossible to perform a fishless cycle.

You go on to say how easy it is to cycle a new tank when you have existing
tanks... this is common knowledge... but what you haven't mentioned is how
to cycle a new tank without the help of mature filter media.

Without mature media, there are three options

1. Put in a couple of hardy fish
2. Use a commercial bio-media to kick start
3. Do a fishless cycle, preferably using ammonia.

For someone setting up a tank for the first time, probably the best advice
is to get the tank set up, preferably with a few plants, and leave the
filter running for a week or two... then put in a couple of hardy fish and
leave it for a couple more weeks before stocking it further.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tynk

January 2nd 07, 09:06 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
> I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
> without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>
> I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
> is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.
>
> Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
> their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
> this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
> there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
>
> I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
> am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
> of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
> water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
> tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
> clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>
> The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
> the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
> gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>
> Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
> of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
> established in the tank.
>
> With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
> needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
> establishes itself rather than building up.
>
> When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
> don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
> seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
> water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
> the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
> water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>
> Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
> scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.

I have to wonder if you have ever checked the gill tissue of the fish
you have used to cycle a tank (without using filter media or gravel
from an established tank). Even with doing many water changes the
cycling fish still become "harmed". Their gills show burn damage.
This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
So just because they aren't dead doesn't mean they aren't harmed. They
can also live many years and you would never know that their gill
tissue is scarred up.
Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
tank.
They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
they float about in the water as some people may think.
This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
yrs.
Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out
a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.

IDzine01

January 2nd 07, 10:21 PM

I don't think anyone would disagree that seeding a new tank with old
tank media is a fast and effective method of tank cycling. The fish
cycling vs. fishless cycling debate derives from cycling a tank from
scratch where fish are exposed to dangerous toxin levels. In this case,
fish often succumb to ammonia poisoning and those that do survive often
experience burned gills and compromised immune systems drastically
shortening their lives. The question that is presented is, is it ok to
kill or injure any fish for the purpose of cycling an aquarium?

Christie

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
> I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
> without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>
> I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
> is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.
>
> Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
> their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
> this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
> there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
>
> I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
> am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
> of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
> water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
> tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
> clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>
> The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
> the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
> gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>
> Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
> of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
> established in the tank.
>
> With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
> needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
> establishes itself rather than building up.
>
> When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
> don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
> seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
> water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
> the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
> water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>
> Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
> scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.

IDzine01

January 2nd 07, 10:25 PM

Tynk,

I didn't realize this. I am guilty of doing the filter "swish" in the
new tank whenever I change out the media. I've never done it to cycle a
tank but I always thought it would help when I'm replacing the media
bag with a clean one. Go figure.

Tynk wrote:
> Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
> tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
> have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
> secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
> the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
> tank.
> They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
> they float about in the water as some people may think.
> This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
> yrs.
> Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out
> a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 2nd 07, 11:20 PM

Tynk

January 3rd 07, 03:03 AM

IDzine01 wrote:
> Tynk,
>
> I didn't realize this. I am guilty of doing the filter "swish" in the
> new tank whenever I change out the media. I've never done it to cycle a
> tank but I always thought it would help when I'm replacing the media
> bag with a clean one. Go figure.
>
>
> Tynk wrote:
> > Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
> > tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
> > have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
> > secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
> > the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
> > tank.
> > They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
> > they float about in the water as some people may think.
> > This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
> > yrs.
> > Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out
> > a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.

Christie,
I used to think this way as well.
I did it a million times. I also use old tank water to help speed it
up. I also saved old tank water when I moved to this house 18 yrs ago,
so to keep the bacteria....so I thought.
Modern science has proven this to be untrue.
There are different types of bacteria in the nitrifying cycle. The ones
that start up the cycle are not the ones we used to think they are. It
used to be thought that they were "nitrosomas" that converted ammonia
to nitrite and then "nitrobacter" bacteria would convert that to
nitrite.
However, it's been learned that nitrospira bacteria are actually the
start up bacteria.
This is why products such as Stress Zyme, Bio Zyme, Bacterboost (if I
have the name right, I'm not sure at all on that one) all have the
wrong bacteria in them. They can get away with claiming they cycle a
tank without getting sued because these bacteria are *technically*
part of the cycling process. When one uses one of these products to
"cycle" their tank, they really aren't. The tank still has to build the
nitrospira bacteria. So when you add fish , you are technically still
cycling with fish.
Science has also proven recently that the nitrifying bacteria are so
"glued" to surfaces that even very strong water cannot break them
loose.
Knowing this current information, how would squeezing a filter pad in a
new tank release them. It wouldn't. It's just outdated information.
Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~

Tynk

January 3rd 07, 03:09 AM

Tynk wrote:
> IDzine01 wrote:
> > Tynk,
> >
> > I didn't realize this. I am guilty of doing the filter "swish" in the
> > new tank whenever I change out the media. I've never done it to cycle a
> > tank but I always thought it would help when I'm replacing the media
> > bag with a clean one. Go figure.
> >
> >
> > Tynk wrote:
> > > Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
> > > tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
> > > have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
> > > secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
> > > the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
> > > tank.
> > > They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
> > > they float about in the water as some people may think.
> > > This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
> > > yrs.
> > > Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out
> > > a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.
>
> Christie,
> I used to think this way as well.
> I did it a million times. I also use old tank water to help speed it
> up. I also saved old tank water when I moved to this house 18 yrs ago,
> so to keep the bacteria....so I thought.
> Modern science has proven this to be untrue.

> However, it's been learned that nitrospira bacteria are actually the
> start up bacteria.
> This is why products such as Stress Zyme, Bio Zyme, Bacterboost (if I
> have the name right, I'm not sure at all on that one) all have the
> wrong bacteria in them. They can get away with claiming they cycle a
> tank without getting sued because these bacteria are *technically*
> part of the cycling process. When one uses one of these products to
> "cycle" their tank, they really aren't. The tank still has to build the
> nitrospira bacteria. So when you add fish , you are technically still
> cycling with fish.
> Science has also proven recently that the nitrifying bacteria are so
> "glued" to surfaces that even very strong water cannot break them
> loose.
> Knowing this current information, how would squeezing a filter pad in a
> new tank release them. It wouldn't. It's just outdated information.
> Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
> still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~

oops...type -o....

<<> There are different types of bacteria in the nitrifying cycle. The
ones
> that start up the cycle are not the ones we used to think they are. It
> used to be thought that they were "nitrosomas" that converted ammonia
> to nitrite and then "nitrobacter" bacteria would convert that to
> nitrite.>>.

I meant to say:
Nitrosomas breaking down the ammonia and then the nitrobacter bacteria
would convert it to nitrite, and so on.

Jim Morcombe

January 3rd 07, 03:56 AM

Tynk wrote:
> Jim Morcombe wrote:
>
>>A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
>>I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
>>without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>>
>>I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
>>is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.
>>
>>Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
>>their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
>>this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
>>there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
>>
>>I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
>>am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
>>of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
>>water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
>>tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
>>clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>>
>>The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
>>the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
>>gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>>
>>Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
>>of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
>>established in the tank.
>>
>>With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
>>needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
>>establishes itself rather than building up.
>>
>>When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
>>don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
>>seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
>>water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
>> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
>>the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
>>water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>>
>>Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
>>scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.
>
>
> I have to wonder if you have ever checked the gill tissue of the fish
> you have used to cycle a tank (without using filter media or gravel
> from an established tank). Even with doing many water changes the
> cycling fish still become "harmed". Their gills show burn damage.
> This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
> So just because they aren't dead doesn't mean they aren't harmed. They
> can also live many years and you would never know that their gill
> tissue is scarred up.
> Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
> tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
> have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
> secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
> the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
> tank.
> They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
> they float about in the water as some people may think.
> This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
> yrs.
> Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out
> a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.
>
I must disagree with you on this point. You are half right in that the
bacteria do adhere to the filter pads and filter media. However they
also adhere to the rocks and gravel in the tank. They also adhere to
the plants and other vegetation in the tank. And...surprise,
surprise...they also adhere to the algae that builds up in the filter
media. In fact, because of the constant supply of nutrients passing
through the filter, the bacteria content within the pond scum is quite
high and it will seed an aquarium quite successfully.

You are right in that it is almost impossible to start a new tank
without seeding it and expect the amonia and nitrite levels to remain
within desirable limits - and yes, this would likely scar the gill
tissue of the fish. With low levels of stocking, it can be controlled
by frequent water changes - but this is counter productive in that you
are removing the nitrites that are needed to feed the bacteria and hence
you are increasing the time to reach an acceptable equalibrium.

Jim Morcombe

January 3rd 07, 03:57 AM

Jim Morcombe

January 3rd 07, 04:04 AM

IDzine01 wrote:
> I don't think anyone would disagree that seeding a new tank with old
> tank media is a fast and effective method of tank cycling. The fish
> cycling vs. fishless cycling debate derives from cycling a tank from
> scratch where fish are exposed to dangerous toxin levels. In this case,
> fish often succumb to ammonia poisoning and those that do survive often
> experience burned gills and compromised immune systems drastically
> shortening their lives. The question that is presented is, is it ok to
> kill or injure any fish for the purpose of cycling an aquarium?
>
> Christie
>
> Jim Morcombe wrote:
>
>>A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
>>I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
>>without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>>
>>I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
>>is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.
>>
>>Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
>>their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
>>this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
>>there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
>>
>>I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
>>am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
>>of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
>>water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
>>tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
>>clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>>
>>The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
>>the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
>>gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>>
>>Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
>>of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
>>established in the tank.
>>
>>With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
>>needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
>>establishes itself rather than building up.
>>
>>When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
>>don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
>>seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
>>water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
>> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
>>the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
>>water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>>
>>Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
>>scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.
>
>
I think those that happily raise "feeder fish" would say "yes", while
those that run around the garden catching snails and mixing up prawn
jelly would say "no".

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 3rd 07, 04:21 AM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> Tynk wrote:
>> Jim Morcombe wrote:
>>
>>>A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
>>>I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
>>>without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>>>
>>>I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
>>>is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my
>>>method.
>>>
>>>Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
>>>their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
>>>this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
>>>there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this
>>>luxury.
>>>
>>>I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
>>>am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
>>>of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
>>>water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
>>>tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
>>>clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>>>
>>>The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
>>>the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
>>>gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>>>
>>>Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
>>>of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
>>>established in the tank.
>>>
>>>With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
>>>needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
>>>establishes itself rather than building up.
>>>
>>>When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
>>>don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
>>>seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
>>>water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
>>> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
>>>the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
>>>water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>>>
>>>Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
>>>scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.
>>
>>
>> I have to wonder if you have ever checked the gill tissue of the fish
>> you have used to cycle a tank (without using filter media or gravel
>> from an established tank). Even with doing many water changes the
>> cycling fish still become "harmed". Their gills show burn damage.
>> This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
>> So just because they aren't dead doesn't mean they aren't harmed. They
>> can also live many years and you would never know that their gill
>> tissue is scarred up.
>> Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
>> tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
>> have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
>> secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
>> the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
>> tank.
>> They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
>> they float about in the water as some people may think.
>> This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
>> yrs.
>> Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out
>> a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.
>>
> I must disagree with you on this point. You are half right in that the
> bacteria do adhere to the filter pads and filter media. However they
> also adhere to the rocks and gravel in the tank. They also adhere to
> the plants and other vegetation in the tank. And...surprise,
> surprise...they also adhere to the algae that builds up in the filter
> media. In fact, because of the constant supply of nutrients passing
> through the filter, the bacteria content within the pond scum is quite
> high and it will seed an aquarium quite successfully.

Correct. The bacteria adhere to all sorts of rubbish in the filter, not just
the media itself. All those particles that are rinsed off and cloud the
water have bacteria attached.

> You are right in that it is almost impossible to start a new tank
> without seeding it and expect the amonia and nitrite levels to remain
> within desirable limits - and yes, this would likely scar the gill
> tissue of the fish. With low levels of stocking, it can be controlled
> by frequent water changes - but this is counter productive in that you
> are removing the nitrites that are needed to feed the bacteria and hence
> you are increasing the time to reach an acceptable equalibrium.

IDzine01

January 3rd 07, 02:04 PM

LOL, maybe Jim, though I think it's a little more complicated. This
coming from someone who would use feeder fish to feed but not to cycle.
I guess there is some shade of gray between feeder fish people and
prawn jelly people. ;-)

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> IDzine01 wrote:
> > I don't think anyone would disagree that seeding a new tank with old
> > tank media is a fast and effective method of tank cycling. The fish
> > cycling vs. fishless cycling debate derives from cycling a tank from
> > scratch where fish are exposed to dangerous toxin levels. In this case,
> > fish often succumb to ammonia poisoning and those that do survive often
> > experience burned gills and compromised immune systems drastically
> > shortening their lives. The question that is presented is, is it ok to
> > kill or injure any fish for the purpose of cycling an aquarium?
> >
> > Christie
> >
> > Jim Morcombe wrote:
> >
> >>A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
> >>I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
> >>without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
> >>
> >>I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
> >>is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.
> >>
> >>Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
> >>their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
> >>this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
> >>there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
> >>
> >>I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
> >>am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
> >>of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
> >>water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
> >>tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
> >>clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
> >>
> >>The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
> >>the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
> >>gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
> >>
> >>Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
> >>of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
> >>established in the tank.
> >>
> >>With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
> >>needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
> >>establishes itself rather than building up.
> >>
> >>When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
> >>don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
> >>seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
> >>water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
> >> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
> >>the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
> >>water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
> >>
> >>Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
> >>scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.
> >
> >
> I think those that happily raise "feeder fish" would say "yes", while
> those that run around the garden catching snails and mixing up prawn
> jelly would say "no".

carlrs

January 3rd 07, 03:26 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> A couple of threads have made comments about cycling in a new tank that
> I disagree with. For example, that it is impossible to cycle a new tank
> without harming the fish and hence you must use "rubbish fish".
>
> I have never lost a fish in cycling in a tank. Probably the main reason
> is that I really understock the tank to start off with. Here's my method.
>
> Most of the time I start a new tank is when my fish have just produced
> their eggs so I have a couple of weeks notice in order to get ready. In
> this case, I put an extra filter into one of my tanks and let it run
> there so that is is full of bacteria. Sometimes I don't have this luxury.
>
> I keep my fry in a net in the main tank for a couple of weeks. When I
> am ready to give them their own tank, I take the dirty filter medium out
> of one of the canister filters and rinse it out in the new tank. The
> water turns into a murky grey/green soup. I then put the filter in the
> tank and let it run for a couple of hours until the water is a little
> clearer. I then dump the juvenilles into the new tank.
>
> The "pond scum" from the canister filter settles all over the bottom of
> the tank, making it pretty gross for the first couple of weeks. A lot
> gets sucked into the filter, but far from all of it.
>
> Thats it, the tank is now established. After a few water changes, most
> of the pond scum has disappeared, but by then the bacteria is well
> established in the tank.
>
> With this method, I am putting in much more bacteria in the tank than is
> needed for the tank, so the bacteria level will fall as the tank
> establishes itself rather than building up.
>
> When I set up a new tank at school for my science students, I often
> don't get around to establishing the new filter first, but this doesn't
> seem to make much difference. I make a party trick out of making the
> water as murky as possible and then dumping a few fish in straight away.
> The kids always accuse me of trying to kill the fish and are amazed
> the next day to see the fish swimming around happily in much clearer
> water. I then use this as a lead in to explaining the nitrogen cycle.
>
> Note that although the bacteria level drops off, the algae in the pond
> scum does not, so this does not add to the level of ammonia in the tank.

I have never recommended the cycle products such as Cycle or Stress
Zyne either.
I have always used the media transfer method (although Bio Spira is
different, but neither I nor the service personnel who took over my
maintenance business have used it enough to vouch for it).

I do not believe fish are expendable either and do not set my customers
FW or SW aquariums with this in mind, and I rarely loose any fish in
my new set ups using the media exchange method (as my customers can
attest to)

I have to agree with Tynk as to the squeezing of media. I actually
tested this theory many years back and found ammonia spikes I did not
with the transfer method. I also agree that the media transfer method
adds "food" for bacterial colony (although the pure ammonia method does
this too, but I believe it is slower and can stress the fish)

Carl
Here is one of my nitrogen cycle articles:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Nitrogen_Cycle.html

nut

January 3rd 07, 03:54 PM

Tynk wrote:
> Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
> still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~

Is the one-inch-per-gallon rule no longer valid?!

Nobody told me... when did this happen?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

nut

January 3rd 07, 04:02 PM

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:

> Correct. The bacteria adhere to all sorts of rubbish in the filter,
> not just the media itself. All those particles that are rinsed off
> and cloud the water have bacteria attached.

I have to admit, until now, when i've set up a new tank i've used 50% tank
water from water changes and 50% dechlorinated tap water.

So, although it's not harmful, using mature [dirty] water has no benefit at
all? From now on i should use 100% clean water?

I've also rinsed filter sponges in new tanks before too, in the hope of
speeding up the cycle... there seems to be mixed opinions on this but it
seems the general consensus is that it doesn't hurt so one may as well do
it.

However, now i have a few established tanks, i have the luxury of using
mature filter media in new tanks.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

nut

January 3rd 07, 04:09 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> I think those that happily raise "feeder fish" would say "yes", while
> those that run around the garden catching snails and mixing up prawn
> jelly would say "no".

I'm assuming the argument is centred around culling fish when the cycle is
complete, so that the tank can be stocked with a more exotic species?

I have no qualms about feeding guppy fry to my dempseys & convicts... but i
still don't like the idea of using fish solely to cycle a tank knowing that,
if the cycle doesn't kill them, i'd have to when the cycle is complete... it
seems a bit brutal when there are other ways to kick start a tank.

However, i don't see anything wrong with advising a new fishkeeper to
lightly stock their tank with a few tetras or barbs to get it going as
there's a very good chance the fish will be fine.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Tynk

January 3rd 07, 04:20 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> >
> I must disagree with you on this point. You are half right in that the
> bacteria do adhere to the filter pads and filter media. However they
> also adhere to the rocks and gravel in the tank. They also adhere to
> the plants and other vegetation in the tank. And...surprise,
> surprise...they also adhere to the algae that builds up in the filter
> media. In fact, because of the constant supply of nutrients passing
> through the filter, the bacteria content within the pond scum is quite
> high and it will seed an aquarium quite successfully.

Jim....
I have already stated that the bacteria adhere to all surfaces in an
earlier post. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

Here's the post I am referring to:

<<<<<<<
Date: Tues, Jan 2 2007 3:06 pm
Email: "Tynk" >
Groups: rec.aquaria.freshwater.misc
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author

I have to wonder if you have ever checked the gill tissue of the fish
you have used to cycle a tank (without using filter media or gravel
from an established tank). Even with doing many water changes the
cycling fish still become "harmed". Their gills show burn damage.
This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
So just because they aren't dead doesn't mean they aren't harmed. They
can also live many years and you would never know that their gill
tissue is scarred up.
Also, as for simply squeezing an established filter's media into the
tank and leaving the muck behind and *not* the actual filter pad, you
have not added the nitrifying bacteria to the new tank. The bacteria
secrete a glue like substance and adhere themselves to the surface of
the pad, gravel, tank walls, plants, decor, etc. of the established
tank.
They do not fall off the filter pad when you squeeze it out, nor do
they float about in the water as some people may think.
This sticky substance was found by scientists within like the last 10
yrs.
Many older hobbyists still think you can take the debris or squeeze out

a filter pad and seed a new tank, however, you cannot.
>>>>>

Tynk

January 3rd 07, 04:29 PM

nut wrote:
> Tynk wrote:
> > Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
> > still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~
>
> Is the one-inch-per-gallon rule no longer valid?!
>
> Nobody told me... when did this happen?
>

It happened quite a while ago.
You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
in inches.
Things one needs to consider are of course the adult size in length,
but also mass makes quite a difference. Waste output is different with
some species. Territory requirements.
Just because a fish may be on the smaller side, doesn't mean it's not
going to shredd another fish that comes into it's territory, but was
the right size in inches for the rest of the space in the tank.
Dietary needs, temp, water chemistry, lighting, etc.
All of these things need to be coinsidered when stocking a tank, not
just how long the fish will grow to when it's an adult.
This is why it's not valid.

Tynk

January 3rd 07, 04:31 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> >
> Keep doing the filter "swish". It is rich in bacteria.

Not according to scientists.
It's rich in muck.

Zebulon

January 3rd 07, 06:03 PM

"Tynk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
> in inches.
======================
Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1" guppy.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

Zebulon

January 3rd 07, 06:05 PM

"Tynk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jim Morcombe wrote:
>
>> >
>> Keep doing the filter "swish". It is rich in bacteria.
>
> Not according to scientists.
> It's rich in muck.
======================
What does the muck contain? I would think there were bacteria adhering to
it.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

Zebulon

January 3rd 07, 06:51 PM

"nut" > wrote in message
...
> However, now i have a few established tanks, i have the luxury of using
> mature filter media in new tanks.
==================
This has almost always worked for me as well. I have several tanks set up
so I now add an extra filter to one of them, then move it to the new tank
when "matured". Works like a charm. ;-)
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 3rd 07, 08:56 PM

nut wrote:

> amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
>
>> Correct. The bacteria adhere to all sorts of rubbish in the filter,
>> not just the media itself. All those particles that are rinsed off
>> and cloud the water have bacteria attached.
>
> I have to admit, until now, when i've set up a new tank i've used 50% tank
> water from water changes and 50% dechlorinated tap water.
>
> So, although it's not harmful, using mature [dirty] water has no benefit
> at all? From now on i should use 100% clean water?
>
> I've also rinsed filter sponges in new tanks before too, in the hope of
> speeding up the cycle... there seems to be mixed opinions on this but it
> seems the general consensus is that it doesn't hurt so one may as well do
> it.
>
> However, now i have a few established tanks, i have the luxury of using
> mature filter media in new tanks.

There are very little bacteria in the water column, so you might as well use
new water. There is some bacteria in the muck, but more on the media
itself, do throw the whole sponge it. Use some of the media out of an
established filter, or use a lot gravel from another tank. The more
bacteria you start with the quicker it can breed up.

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 3rd 07, 09:00 PM

Tynk

January 4th 07, 01:22 AM

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
> nut wrote:
>
> > Tynk wrote:
> >> Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
> >> still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~
> >
> > Is the one-inch-per-gallon rule no longer valid?!
> >
> > Nobody told me... when did this happen?
>
> It uses a linear measure to calculate a volume. It can never and could never
> have worked, an I can't imagine who ever came up with a silly rule like
> that. A 60 inch fish goes in a 60 gallon tank? Cool.
>
> In any case, it's a metric world these days and who the heck knows what an
> inch and a gallon is anyway. Only the US uses that stuff these days :)

You know Tim,
If the teacher and ones in charge would have switched over long ago we
would all be on the same page with that. I cannot figure out most
metric, as I am from the US.
The simple things, sure. Things we Americans use all the time. 1 & 2
liter bottles, centimeters, a yard, etc. I'm lost when it comes to much
else. = /

nut

January 4th 07, 04:59 AM

Zëbulon wrote:
> "Tynk" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
>> in inches.
> ======================
> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
> guppy.

The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Zebulon

January 4th 07, 05:04 AM

"nut" > wrote in message
...
> Zëbulon wrote:
>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
>>> in inches.
>> ======================
>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>> guppy.
>
> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
=================
This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the time
asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep them
together successfully.

Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 4th 07, 06:49 AM

Tynk wrote:

>
> amosf Â© Tim Fairchild wrote:
>> nut wrote:
>>
>> > Tynk wrote:
>> >> Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
>> >> still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~
>> >
>> > Is the one-inch-per-gallon rule no longer valid?!
>> >
>> > Nobody told me... when did this happen?
>>
>> It uses a linear measure to calculate a volume. It can never and could
>> never have worked, an I can't imagine who ever came up with a silly rule
>> like that. A 60 inch fish goes in a 60 gallon tank? Cool.
>>
>> In any case, it's a metric world these days and who the heck knows what
>> an inch and a gallon is anyway. Only the US uses that stuff these days :)
>
> You know Tim,
> If the teacher and ones in charge would have switched over long ago we
> would all be on the same page with that. I cannot figure out most
> metric, as I am from the US.
> The simple things, sure. Things we Americans use all the time. 1 & 2
> liter bottles, centimeters, a yard, etc. I'm lost when it comes to much
> else. = /

It's a pity... But oh well. I notice it the most on aquarium lists as it's
always about measures - so there is always converting to do :)

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 4th 07, 06:51 AM

nut wrote:

> Zëbulon wrote:
>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
>>> in inches.
>> ======================
>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>> guppy.
>
> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.

Doesn't work there either really. A six inch Rainbow fish is a lot more
mass, and a bigger waste producer, and requires more tank, than 2 or 3
neons...

nut

January 4th 07, 08:12 AM

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
> nut wrote:
>
>> Zbulon wrote:
>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>> size in inches.
>>> ======================
>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>> guppy.
>>
>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>
> Doesn't work there either really. A six inch Rainbow fish is a lot
> more mass, and a bigger waste producer, and requires more tank, than
> 2 or 3 neons...

3 inch neons?! what are you feeding them on?!

I never said the rule was infallible, it's only meant as a rough guideline.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

nut

January 4th 07, 08:20 AM

Zëbulon wrote:
> "nut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Zëbulon wrote:
>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>> size in inches.
>>> ======================
>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>> guppy.
>>
>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
> =================
> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
> time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
> them together successfully.
>
> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.

Newbies don't tend to keep cichlids, they keep non-aggressive community
fish... most of which have similar requirements.

However, i'm not disagreeing with you - i admit the rule isn't an accurate
guide.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

nut

January 4th 07, 08:21 AM

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 4th 07, 09:41 AM

nut wrote:

> amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
>> nut wrote:
>>
>>> Zbulon wrote:
>>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>> size in inches.
>>>> ======================
>>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>> guppy.
>>>
>>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>
>> Doesn't work there either really. A six inch Rainbow fish is a lot
>> more mass, and a bigger waste producer, and requires more tank, than
>> 2 or 3 neons...
>
> 3 inch neons?! what are you feeding them on?!

My apology, I meant tetra.

> I never said the rule was infallible, it's only meant as a rough
> guideline.

Unfortunately it's not even good enough for a rough guideline. What is the
use of a rule that has more exceptions than the rule? An inch per gallon,
but not for coldwater and not for goldfish and not for loaches and not for
discus and other deep body fish and not for thick fish and not for fish
over 4 inches long and not for...

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 4th 07, 09:44 AM

nut wrote:

> Zëbulon wrote:
>> "nut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Zëbulon wrote:
>>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>> size in inches.
>>>> ======================
>>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>> guppy.
>>>
>>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>> =================
>> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
>> time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
>> them together successfully.
>>
>> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
>
> Newbies don't tend to keep cichlids, they keep non-aggressive community
> fish... most of which have similar requirements.
>
> However, i'm not disagreeing with you - i admit the rule isn't an accurate
> guide.

How many newbies DO keep an Oscar tho - and what a great example of how
useless the inch gallon rule is there... Sure, you can keep a 10 inch Oscar
in a 10g...

And I forgot angels as well...

And newbies also keep africans. They are pretty, and the LFS says they are
easy...

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild

January 4th 07, 09:47 AM

nut wrote:

> Zëbulon wrote:
>> "nut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Zëbulon wrote:
>>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>> size in inches.
>>>> ======================
>>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>> guppy.
>>>
>>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>> =================
>> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
>> time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
>> them together successfully.
>>
>> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
>
> Newbies don't tend to keep cichlids, they keep non-aggressive community
> fish... most of which have similar requirements.
>
> However, i'm not disagreeing with you - i admit the rule isn't an accurate
> guide.

I know what you mean. People need a guide. but I feel it's a bad guide.
People do some easy math and think everything is fine. What they need to
know is more about the realities of what is going on in the tank and the
nitrogen cycle and toxin build up and all the rest.

nut

January 4th 07, 10:46 AM

amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
> nut wrote:
>
>> amosf Tim Fairchild wrote:
>>> nut wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zbulon wrote:
>>>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>>> size in inches.
>>>>> ======================
>>>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>>> guppy.
>>>>
>>>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>>
>>> Doesn't work there either really. A six inch Rainbow fish is a lot
>>> more mass, and a bigger waste producer, and requires more tank, than
>>> 2 or 3 neons...
>>
>> 3 inch neons?! what are you feeding them on?!
>
> My apology, I meant tetra.
>
>> I never said the rule was infallible, it's only meant as a rough
>> guideline.
>
> Unfortunately it's not even good enough for a rough guideline. What
> is the use of a rule that has more exceptions than the rule? An inch
> per gallon, but not for coldwater and not for goldfish and not for
> loaches and not for discus and other deep body fish and not for thick
> fish and not for fish over 4 inches long and not for...

You are, of course, absolutely right.

However, you are taking it to extremes to prove your point. The rule is for
tropical fish, not coldwater, and whereas newbies often go for angels,
they're far less likely to buy 4" fish, and they certainly don't buy discus!

*Most* people tend to get a 30G tank, throw a bit of gravel and a few
decorations in there, fit a filter (which they then completely forget
about), and stock it with tetras, barbs, angels, guppies, mollies and one or
two bottom feeders... whatever's cheap in their LFS. They then come back
after a week or two and ask why the live bearers are missing/dead/dying.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

January 4th 07, 11:13 AM

nut wrote:

> amosf © Tim Fairchild wrote:
>> nut wrote:
>>
>>> amosf Tim Fairchild wrote:
>>>> nut wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Zbulon wrote:
>>>>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>>>>> oups.com...
>>>>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>>>> size in inches.
>>>>>> ======================
>>>>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>>>> guppy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't work there either really. A six inch Rainbow fish is a lot
>>>> more mass, and a bigger waste producer, and requires more tank, than
>>>> 2 or 3 neons...
>>>
>>> 3 inch neons?! what are you feeding them on?!
>>
>> My apology, I meant tetra.
>>
>>> I never said the rule was infallible, it's only meant as a rough
>>> guideline.
>>
>> Unfortunately it's not even good enough for a rough guideline. What
>> is the use of a rule that has more exceptions than the rule? An inch
>> per gallon, but not for coldwater and not for goldfish and not for
>> loaches and not for discus and other deep body fish and not for thick
>> fish and not for fish over 4 inches long and not for...
>
> You are, of course, absolutely right.
>
> However, you are taking it to extremes to prove your point. The rule is
> for tropical fish, not coldwater, and whereas newbies often go for angels,
> they're far less likely to buy 4" fish, and they certainly don't buy
> discus!
>
> *Most* people tend to get a 30G tank, throw a bit of gravel and a few
> decorations in there, fit a filter (which they then completely forget
> about), and stock it with tetras, barbs, angels, guppies, mollies and one
> or two bottom feeders... whatever's cheap in their LFS. They then come
> back after a week or two and ask why the live bearers are
> missing/dead/dying.

If they stick to mollies and guppies that's great :) Too often they get
clown loaches and plecos however :)

And goldfish, of course. Most don't know the rule doesn't apply...

Now, that is of course those that even follow the rule. I saw a 3g tank the
other day (okay, it may have been 5g, but I doubt it) and it had a 5 inch
comet and 4 other fancy goldfish.

And as you say, they throw it all together and wonder why it doesn't work.
And most get poor advice and a bunch of chemicals, like stress zyme and
cycle.

Ah well...

Jim Morcombe

January 4th 07, 12:15 PM

Zëbulon wrote:
>
> "nut" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Zëbulon wrote:
>>
>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
>>>> in inches.
>>>
>>> ======================
>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>> guppy.
>>
>>
>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>
> =================
> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
> time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
> them together successfully.
>
> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
My wife makes me keep HER goldfish in with my tropicals. It looks
strange, but it works.

Jim Morcombe

January 4th 07, 12:21 PM

amosf Â© Tim Fairchild wrote:

> Tynk wrote:
>
>
>>amosf Â© Tim Fairchild wrote:
>>
>>>nut wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Tynk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Kind of like the old, or rather better said, not current generation
>>>>>still telling folks the "one inch per gallon rule". = )~
>>>>
>>>>Is the one-inch-per-gallon rule no longer valid?!
>>>>
>>>>Nobody told me... when did this happen?
>>>
>>>It uses a linear measure to calculate a volume. It can never and could
>>>never have worked, an I can't imagine who ever came up with a silly rule
>>>like that. A 60 inch fish goes in a 60 gallon tank? Cool.
>>>
>>>In any case, it's a metric world these days and who the heck knows what
>>>an inch and a gallon is anyway. Only the US uses that stuff these days :)
>>
>>You know Tim,
>>If the teacher and ones in charge would have switched over long ago we
>>would all be on the same page with that. I cannot figure out most
>>metric, as I am from the US.
>>The simple things, sure. Things we Americans use all the time. 1 & 2
>>liter bottles, centimeters, a yard, etc. I'm lost when it comes to much
>>else. = /
>
>
> It's a pity... But oh well. I notice it the most on aquarium lists as it's
> always about measures - so there is always converting to do :)
>
>
Each week I go through the paper looking at the second hand aquariums
for sale - for when I have money for my next one - half the sizes are in
metric and half in imperial. I still have to read with my calculator
next to me to get a gut feel for the size of the tanks.

Jim Morcombe

January 4th 07, 12:24 PM

Tynk wrote:

> Jim Morcombe wrote:
>
>
>>Keep doing the filter "swish". It is rich in bacteria.
>
>
> Not according to scientists.
> It's rich in muck.
>
Do you have a refernce on that? Speaking as a scientist, I think it is
rich in bacteria. (AlthoughI am not a microbiologist)

atomweaver

January 4th 07, 03:51 PM

Zëbulon > wrote in
:

>
> "nut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Zëbulon wrote:
>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>> size in inches.
>>> ======================
>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>> guppy.
>>
>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
> =================
> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
> time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
> them together successfully.
>
> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.

It would be good to have something a little more accurate than the inch
per gallon guide. In one article I read, they made the excellent
suggestion that the "real" main limiting factors for an aquarium are
mass of fish as adults vs. water surface area of the tank (which is a
more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate), with different
stocking ratios for Fresh, brackish, salt, (and warm and cold) waters.

You could further modify this by multiplier factors considering things
like whether additional oxygenation/waste management is available
(airstone, planted tank etc), or fractional multipliers for if you're
keeping only carnivorous fish (more waste). The main advantage is that
you get a better feel for the differences in body types. The drawback
is that I haven't found many sources which report average/typical adult
fish mass. This is one of them;

http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=323&cid=53
&search

For common freshwater species, that table gives you neons at 0.2g and
7cm discus at 19 g. If anyone knows of other resources which report
more adult typical mass values for FW aquarium species, I'd love to see
it. I could bring my fish into work, and weigh each immersed in a fixed
volume in a graduated cylinder (and then weigh the water afterwards to
calculate their mass), but I'd rather save them the stress of such a
trip.

Even after all that, metabolic rate doesn't scale directly with mass of
the fish, but this would be a step in a more accurate direction.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Tynk

January 4th 07, 04:02 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> Tynk wrote:
>
> > Jim Morcombe wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Keep doing the filter "swish". It is rich in bacteria.
> >
> >
> > Not according to scientists.
> > It's rich in muck.
> >
> Do you have a refernce on that? Speaking as a scientist, I think it is
> rich in bacteria. (AlthoughI am not a microbiologist)

Well, research a scientist named Peter Strom. He's an environmental
scientist that has been studying nitrifying bacteria for the past 30
yrs.
His name is tossed out because simply because he was recently written
about in the January edition of Tropical Fish Hobbyist, but I have
learned about this being the case a few years ago.
Also, you can find more about the correct bacteria on the BioSpira info
page at Marineland.com.
Like I mentioned before, this is relativly new information that was
learned within the last 10 yrs (give or take).
I think abut it this way....if these starter nitrifying bacteria
secrete such a sticky substand that not even hard, rushing water can
get them to break loose, how is swooshing a filter going to get them
loose?
They also adhere to more solid surfaces, not goo or gunk that floats
about.
Of course there are a few out there loose, but not enough to cycle a
tank with.
This is why adding a filter pad, gravel, plants, etc., from an
established tank with a more solid surface is the best way because it
will have the most bacteria stuck to it.
Folks that know what they're doing and know how to keep a fishtank
healthy will be doing major water changes and gravel vacs while cycling
a tank with fish. Of course the knowldegeable would lose the least
amount of fish doing so.
Now the ones that swoosh a filter pad (only) in a newly cycling tank,
or use old tank water, may *think* they just added N. bacteria and
started the process, but with their water changes and good tank
maintenance their cycling process is simply less harmful to the fish
they are using. This is because of the water changed and gravel vacs
and had nothing to do with adding old water or gunk from a filter pad.
You're actually just adding debris and old water. I understand this is
a bit hard to believe, as I had a hard time believing it at first.
I used to be under the same impression that by adding debris and old
tank water I was adding the N. bacteria. Now, however, I have learned
otherwise.

As for the side conversation going on (I know I started it with my
comment, sorry) about the one inch per gallon rule being ridiculous, it
really doesn't fit anywhere.
It's no good for newbies, as it just screws them up right off the bat.
I have spoken to countless newbies who have a 10g tank with a few
Oscars, some have a hodge podge of fish that have no business being
together in a tank....but will justify it because it's the right amount
of inches...some that keep buying Discus and they keep dying, but their
Mollies and Tiger Barbs are fine. I hear all sorts of crazy things.
Things that will make a seasoned hobbyist's head spin (several times
before exploding).
99% of the time it always goes back to that stupid "rule".
And for the person who is thinking that newbies don't buy Discus, or
certain Cichlids, etc...oh they do. All too often.
Besides the stupid "rule", another huge problem in the hobby is shop
employees that do not have a clue as to what they're doing, or know
anything about the fish they are selling.
Just last week I was trying to convince a Petsmart employee that he
couldn't add Neons to his newly set up 75g that he already had a Black
Moore and several Platies in.
Besides the whole..new tank syndrome being very bad for Neons, I tried
to explain the whole *don't mix tropicals iwth cold water fish" thing
to him. This was lost on him.
I got the usual response...they look fine, and seem happy.
:: My head has started to spin already::
Then he asks well what would be good to put in it, I reply a couple
more Goldifsh and that's it.
He thought I was nuts and after explaing how large his Moore would grow
to and he thought I was out of my mind, or messing with him. He said
they don't get that large...no way. That's the size of a Koi. I said
yeah, a baby Koi.
:: head has since exploded and is still spinning::
I explained to him to please research Black Moores when he gets home,
and that Koi get like 30" long and should be in a pond, not a
tank...again, he's like Nooooo. Ok, I add research them too.
This guy is giving out "advice" on a daily basis to many newbies out
there.
He's just one guy. Look how many folks have horror stories of shop
employees spreading bull doo doo to the unknowing.
Now do understand that I spoke in a calm, nice mannor to this kid. It
was difficult, but I managed to do it.
I ended the conversation with him like this....
You work in a pet shop. You have fish tanks at home with fish you don't
know about, and that shouldn't be mixed together. You should really
learn about the creatures you are both selling and keeping. It's very
important.
He said he would Google Moores when he got home and bet he wouldn't
find anything about them getting around 8" long and a girth about the
size of a small orange.
I really hope he did. Not so I would be proven right, but for his own
knowledge, his fish, and the newbies he "advises".

carlrs

January 4th 07, 04:39 PM

Tynk wrote:
> Jim Morcombe wrote:
> > Tynk wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Morcombe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Keep doing the filter "swish". It is rich in bacteria.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not according to scientists.
> > > It's rich in muck.
> > >
> > Do you have a refernce on that? Speaking as a scientist, I think it is
> > rich in bacteria. (AlthoughI am not a microbiologist)
>
> Well, research a scientist named Peter Strom. He's an environmental
> scientist that has been studying nitrifying bacteria for the past 30
> yrs.
> His name is tossed out because simply because he was recently written
> about in the January edition of Tropical Fish Hobbyist, but I have
> learned about this being the case a few years ago.
> Also, you can find more about the correct bacteria on the BioSpira info
> page at Marineland.com.
> Like I mentioned before, this is relativly new information that was
> learned within the last 10 yrs (give or take).
> I think abut it this way....if these starter nitrifying bacteria
> secrete such a sticky substand that not even hard, rushing water can
> get them to break loose, how is swooshing a filter going to get them
> loose?
> They also adhere to more solid surfaces, not goo or gunk that floats
> about.
> Of course there are a few out there loose, but not enough to cycle a
> tank with.
> This is why adding a filter pad, gravel, plants, etc., from an
> established tank with a more solid surface is the best way because it
> will have the most bacteria stuck to it.
> Folks that know what they're doing and know how to keep a fishtank
> healthy will be doing major water changes and gravel vacs while cycling
> a tank with fish. Of course the knowldegeable would lose the least
> amount of fish doing so.
> Now the ones that swoosh a filter pad (only) in a newly cycling tank,
> or use old tank water, may *think* they just added N. bacteria and
> started the process, but with their water changes and good tank
> maintenance their cycling process is simply less harmful to the fish
> they are using. This is because of the water changed and gravel vacs
> and had nothing to do with adding old water or gunk from a filter pad.
> You're actually just adding debris and old water. I understand this is
> a bit hard to believe, as I had a hard time believing it at first.
> I used to be under the same impression that by adding debris and old
> tank water I was adding the N. bacteria. Now, however, I have learned
> otherwise.
>
> As for the side conversation going on (I know I started it with my
> comment, sorry) about the one inch per gallon rule being ridiculous, it
> really doesn't fit anywhere.
> It's no good for newbies, as it just screws them up right off the bat.
> I have spoken to countless newbies who have a 10g tank with a few
> Oscars, some have a hodge podge of fish that have no business being
> together in a tank....but will justify it because it's the right amount
> of inches...some that keep buying Discus and they keep dying, but their
> Mollies and Tiger Barbs are fine. I hear all sorts of crazy things.
> Things that will make a seasoned hobbyist's head spin (several times
> before exploding).
> 99% of the time it always goes back to that stupid "rule".
> And for the person who is thinking that newbies don't buy Discus, or
> certain Cichlids, etc...oh they do. All too often.
> Besides the stupid "rule", another huge problem in the hobby is shop
> employees that do not have a clue as to what they're doing, or know
> anything about the fish they are selling.
> Just last week I was trying to convince a Petsmart employee that he
> couldn't add Neons to his newly set up 75g that he already had a Black
> Moore and several Platies in.
> Besides the whole..new tank syndrome being very bad for Neons, I tried
> to explain the whole *don't mix tropicals iwth cold water fish" thing
> to him. This was lost on him.
> I got the usual response...they look fine, and seem happy.
> :: My head has started to spin already::
> Then he asks well what would be good to put in it, I reply a couple
> more Goldifsh and that's it.
> He thought I was nuts and after explaing how large his Moore would grow
> to and he thought I was out of my mind, or messing with him. He said
> they don't get that large...no way. That's the size of a Koi. I said
> yeah, a baby Koi.
> :: head has since exploded and is still spinning::
> I explained to him to please research Black Moores when he gets home,
> and that Koi get like 30" long and should be in a pond, not a
> tank...again, he's like Nooooo. Ok, I add research them too.
> This guy is giving out "advice" on a daily basis to many newbies out
> there.
> He's just one guy. Look how many folks have horror stories of shop
> employees spreading bull doo doo to the unknowing.
> Now do understand that I spoke in a calm, nice mannor to this kid. It
> was difficult, but I managed to do it.
> I ended the conversation with him like this....
> You work in a pet shop. You have fish tanks at home with fish you don't
> know about, and that shouldn't be mixed together. You should really
> learn about the creatures you are both selling and keeping. It's very
> important.
> He said he would Google Moores when he got home and bet he wouldn't
> find anything about them getting around 8" long and a girth about the
> size of a small orange.
> I really hope he did. Not so I would be proven right, but for his own
> knowledge, his fish, and the newbies he "advises".

As I noted in a much earlier reply on this long thread about using the
filter pad "swoosh" method of cycling, I have conducted side by side
comparisons of this method in one client where I set up several
aquariums at the same time and monitored the ammonia levels. There was
a pronounced ammonia spike with the "swoosh" method and none with a
healthy media exchange (and a reasonable amount of media was used).

As for my two cents on the inch per gallon (one cm per 2 liter?), I
have not recommended this for years, yet I will admit that for narrow
bodied fish such as neons I will still use this on occasion to explain.
But what I think is more important (and this was pointed out earlier in
the thread) are these factors:

*Surface area of the aquarium
*Type of fish, such as fish that naturally produce more waste (partly
do to the type of food they eat) such as goldfish where one fish per 8+
gallons is better.
*Filtration, a properly filtered aquarium with multiple filters is
important.
*Maintenance schedule
*New or experienced aquarist; new aquarist tend to over feed, often buy
cheap foods, listen to inexperienced PetsMart employees (LOL, could not
resist that one, but I found it to be true based on client feedback).

Carl
http://aquarium-info.blogspot.com/

Zebulon

January 4th 07, 09:34 PM

"Jim Morcombe" > wrote in message
...
> Zëbulon wrote:
>> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the time
>> asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep them
>> together successfully.
>>
>> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
> My wife makes me keep HER goldfish in with my tropicals. It looks
> strange, but it works.
====================
It works for a lot of people because GF can live quite well in warm water.
All my indoor fancy GF live with plecos and otos. The water seldom drops
below 75F in the tanks.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

ZÃ«bulon

January 4th 07, 09:40 PM

"amosf Â© Tim Fairchild" > wrote in message
...
> Unfortunately it's not even good enough for a rough guideline. What is the
> use of a rule that has more exceptions than the rule? An inch per gallon,
> but not for coldwater and not for goldfish and not for loaches and not for
> discus and other deep body fish and not for thick fish and not for fish
> over 4 inches long and not for...
==================
It's a rule that should be retired. It's almost useless as anyone can see.
There's just too much variation in the size and bulk of the fish we keep to
be of any real use.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(Ã¶> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

January 4th 07, 10:48 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> ZÃ«bulon wrote:
>>
>> "nut" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> ZÃ«bulon wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Tynk" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>> variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's size
>>>>> in inches.
>>>>
>>>> ======================
>>>> Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>> guppy.
>>>
>>>
>>> The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>
>> =================
>> This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
>> time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
>> them together successfully.
>>
>> Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
> My wife makes me keep HER goldfish in with my tropicals. It looks
> strange, but it works.

My wife put her goldfish in my gourami tank once as well. I soon got her
another tank.

She appreciated it after one of the goldfish lost it's tail to a gudgeon.

Jim Morcombe

January 5th 07, 12:35 AM

atomweaver wrote:
> Zëbulon > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"nut" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Zëbulon wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Tynk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>>variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>>size in inches.
>>>>
>>>>======================
>>>>Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>>guppy.
>>>
>>>The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>
>>=================
>>This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
>>time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
>>them together successfully.
>>
>>Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
>
>
> It would be good to have something a little more accurate than the inch
> per gallon guide. In one article I read, they made the excellent
> suggestion that the "real" main limiting factors for an aquarium are
> mass of fish as adults vs. water surface area of the tank (which is a
> more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate), with different
> stocking ratios for Fresh, brackish, salt, (and warm and cold) waters.
>
> You could further modify this by multiplier factors considering things
> like whether additional oxygenation/waste management is available
> (airstone, planted tank etc), or fractional multipliers for if you're
> keeping only carnivorous fish (more waste). The main advantage is that
> you get a better feel for the differences in body types. The drawback
> is that I haven't found many sources which report average/typical adult
> fish mass. This is one of them;
>
> http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=323&cid=53
> &search
>
> For common freshwater species, that table gives you neons at 0.2g and
> 7cm discus at 19 g. If anyone knows of other resources which report
> more adult typical mass values for FW aquarium species, I'd love to see
> it. I could bring my fish into work, and weigh each immersed in a fixed
> volume in a graduated cylinder (and then weigh the water afterwards to
> calculate their mass), but I'd rather save them the stress of such a
> trip.
>
> Even after all that, metabolic rate doesn't scale directly with mass of
> the fish, but this would be a step in a more accurate direction.
>
> DaveZ
> Atom Weaver

As you said, "water surface area of the tank (which is a
> more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate)". Oxygen is one
limiting factor, but this should be determined by the
filtration/oxygenation equipment you have in the tank, not surface area.

Another fish-keeping myth is that "fish grow to the size of the tank".
There is some truth in this, although I haven't figured out the
mechanism yet. Perhaps the water quality determins the size of the fish
and as the fish grow too large for the tank/filtration system.
Consequently there is a higher level of nitrite or some other factor
that slows the growth of the fish.

In any case, if you put in a filtration/oxygenation system four times
the recomended size, you can support more fish and your fish will grow
faster.

In other words, your recomendations for rules of fish stocking needs to
take into account factors such as water flow rates, filtration
effectiveness and oxygenation.

On the topic of measuring fish, I always have trouble with the method
you mentioned. I find it is easier and more accurate to measure the
length of the fish and the estimate its mass by interpolation. But
then, I'm a bit of a klutz and my students are even worse. (I first
discovered the effect of incorrect filter sizes on growth rates when I
disassembled the tanks we had used for a growth rate experiment that
failed only to find that the students had mixed up the filters and that
the filter sizes explained the strange results).

Jim Morcombe

January 5th 07, 12:37 AM

January 5th 07, 01:11 AM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> atomweaver wrote:
>> ZÃ«bulon > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>"nut" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>ZÃ«bulon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Tynk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>>>variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>>>size in inches.
>>>>>
>>>>>======================
>>>>>Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>>>guppy.
>>>>
>>>>The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>>
>>>=================
>>>This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
>>>time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
>>>them together successfully.
>>>
>>>Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
>>
>>
>> It would be good to have something a little more accurate than the inch
>> per gallon guide. In one article I read, they made the excellent
>> suggestion that the "real" main limiting factors for an aquarium are
>> mass of fish as adults vs. water surface area of the tank (which is a
>> more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate), with different
>> stocking ratios for Fresh, brackish, salt, (and warm and cold) waters.
>>
>> You could further modify this by multiplier factors considering things
>> like whether additional oxygenation/waste management is available
>> (airstone, planted tank etc), or fractional multipliers for if you're
>> keeping only carnivorous fish (more waste). The main advantage is that
>> you get a better feel for the differences in body types. The drawback
>> is that I haven't found many sources which report average/typical adult
>> fish mass. This is one of them;
>>
>> http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=323&cid=53
>> &search
>>
>> For common freshwater species, that table gives you neons at 0.2g and
>> 7cm discus at 19 g. If anyone knows of other resources which report
>> more adult typical mass values for FW aquarium species, I'd love to see
>> it. I could bring my fish into work, and weigh each immersed in a fixed
>> volume in a graduated cylinder (and then weigh the water afterwards to
>> calculate their mass), but I'd rather save them the stress of such a
>> trip.
>>
>> Even after all that, metabolic rate doesn't scale directly with mass of
>> the fish, but this would be a step in a more accurate direction.
>>
>> DaveZ
>> Atom Weaver
>
> As you said, "water surface area of the tank (which is a
> > more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate)". Oxygen is one
> limiting factor, but this should be determined by the
> filtration/oxygenation equipment you have in the tank, not surface area.

Yeah. I don't think surface area is a big factor if you have circulation and
are moving that surface.

> Another fish-keeping myth is that "fish grow to the size of the tank".
> There is some truth in this, although I haven't figured out the
> mechanism yet. Perhaps the water quality determins the size of the fish
> and as the fish grow too large for the tank/filtration system.
> Consequently there is a higher level of nitrite or some other factor
> that slows the growth of the fish.

What happens is that fish grow normally in good conditions and they grow
poorly in poor conditions. Once the various N levels rise, even if its just
very high NO3, then the fish will not grow well. And there are other
toxins, heavy metals, hormones and the rest that will make conditions poor.
So fish will often seem to 'grow to the size of the tank' but what it means
is that the fish are in poor conditions and not healthy.

> In any case, if you put in a filtration/oxygenation system four times
> the recomended size, you can support more fish and your fish will grow
> faster.

Well, for goldfish you need about 4x anyway. The filtration certainly helps.
You keep the toxin levels down, esp NH3 and NO2, and the fish will do
better. You will still need to remove the NO3 and other toxins with plants
and water changes. With a highly overstocked tank you are going to need
water changes very often to keep conditions from becoming poor.

> In other words, your recomendations for rules of fish stocking needs to
> take into account factors such as water flow rates, filtration
> effectiveness and oxygenation.

Yes, I'd agree with that. It pays not to push things too far as maintenance
becomes harder and there is more risk or a sudden catastrophic failure in
the balance.

> On the topic of measuring fish, I always have trouble with the method
> you mentioned. I find it is easier and more accurate to measure the
> length of the fish and the estimate its mass by interpolation. But
> then, I'm a bit of a klutz and my students are even worse. (I first
> discovered the effect of incorrect filter sizes on growth rates when I
> disassembled the tanks we had used for a growth rate experiment that
> failed only to find that the students had mixed up the filters and that
> the filter sizes explained the strange results).

Stocking is a hard one. It becomes a feel rather than a calculation. Water
parameters and slow stocking is a good way to feel your way into a tank.

January 5th 07, 01:13 AM

Jim Morcombe wrote:

> atomweaver wrote:
>
>> ZÃ«bulon > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>"nut" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>ZÃ«bulon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Tynk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>You cannot set such a vague "rule" when there are way too many
>>>>>>variables when it comes to stocking a fish...much more than it's
>>>>>>size in inches.
>>>>>
>>>>>======================
>>>>>Such as the fact a 1" goldfish passes a lot more waste than a 1"
>>>>>guppy.
>>>>
>>>>The rule was for tropical fish, not coldwater.
>>>
>>>=================
>>>This is true but how many newbies know that? They come here all the
>>>time asking about putting tropicals with goldfish. Some people keep
>>>them together successfully.
>>>
>>>Also, some tropicals have a lot more bulk per inch than others.
>>
>>
>> It would be good to have something a little more accurate than the inch
>> per gallon guide. In one article I read, they made the excellent
>> suggestion that the "real" main limiting factors for an aquarium are
>> mass of fish as adults vs. water surface area of the tank (which is a
>> more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate), with different
>> stocking ratios for Fresh, brackish, salt, (and warm and cold) waters.
>>
>> You could further modify this by multiplier factors considering things
>> like whether additional oxygenation/waste management is available
>> (airstone, planted tank etc), or fractional multipliers for if you're
>> keeping only carnivorous fish (more waste). The main advantage is that
>> you get a better feel for the differences in body types. The drawback
>> is that I haven't found many sources which report average/typical adult
>> fish mass. This is one of them;
>>
>> http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=323&cid=53
>> &search
>>
>> For common freshwater species, that table gives you neons at 0.2g and
>> 7cm discus at 19 g. If anyone knows of other resources which report
>> more adult typical mass values for FW aquarium species, I'd love to see
>> it. I could bring my fish into work, and weigh each immersed in a fixed
>> volume in a graduated cylinder (and then weigh the water afterwards to
>> calculate their mass), but I'd rather save them the stress of such a
>> trip.
>>
>> Even after all that, metabolic rate doesn't scale directly with mass of
>> the fish, but this would be a step in a more accurate direction.
>>
>> DaveZ
>> Atom Weaver
> One other factor affecting the bio mass that can be supported in a tank
> is the feeding habits of the owners. If you overfeed your fish you can
> have less fish in your tank. If you underfeed them, you can have more
> fish. (Unless they die of starvation).

I prefer to overfeed rather than underfeed. That way I push the tank past
the stocking level if you know what I mean. That way I'll see any problem
before the tank is overstocked, and then I can cut back feed, let the tank
settle, and then work out how to fix the problem if it needs fixing - ie
plants, more filtration, less fish, etc.

carlrs

January 5th 07, 03:18 PM

Jim Morcombe wrote:
> As you said, "water surface area of the tank (which is a
> > more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate)". Oxygen is one
> limiting factor, but this should be determined by the
> filtration/oxygenation equipment you have in the tank, not surface area.
>

I have found a combination of filtration (type of filtration also makes
a difference), circulation, AND surface are make a difference. As an
example, there were these tall narrow in diameter bullet shaped
aquariums that were popular in the early 1980s, many of my clients
purchased them (not from me, I did not sell them). I installed
comparable filters, air pumps, ECT., yet the capacity of these
aquariums were not as high as the more standard rectangular aquariums I
maintained (as measured by ammonia spikes, nitrites, nitrates,
dissolved oxygen and most importantly, general fish health and
longevity.

> Another fish-keeping myth is that "fish grow to the size of the tank".
> There is some truth in this, although I haven't figured out the
> mechanism yet. Perhaps the water quality determins the size of the fish
> and as the fish grow too large for the tank/filtration system.
> Consequently there is a higher level of nitrite or some other factor
> that slows the growth of the fish.

As you stated, I have found many mechanisms here, nitrates (not
nitrites) has an effect on growth of fish. I have not conducted any
serious tests here, but you raise some interesting points. For instance
in the case of goldfish in under sized aquariums (which is all too
common for GF), I have noticed in a few tanks (not many as I have not
purposefully tried to push the over crowding rule), that goldfish will
grow quickly in very healthy, well filtered, excellent water parameter
aquariums vs. clients who have called me out to small aquariums with
poor conditions that are crowded with GF where the customers has argued
that they have had these fish for "years" in the small aquarium, yet
these fish are small. Of coarse the term here is stunting and these
fish rarely thrive and live as long.

> In any case, if you put in a filtration/oxygenation system four times
> the recomended size, you can support more fish and your fish will grow
> faster.
>
> In other words, your recomendations for rules of fish stocking needs to
> take into account factors such as water flow rates, filtration
> effectiveness and oxygenation.

I agree, you raise many good points, but surface are is still a major
factor. I mention all these factors in my basic FW aquarium article:
http://www.americanaquariumproducts.com/Basic_Aquarium_Principles.html

Carl

atomweaver

January 5th 07, 03:35 PM

Jim Morcombe > wrote in
:

> atomweaver wrote:

>>
>> It would be good to have something a little more accurate than the
>> inch per gallon guide. In one article I read, they made the
>> excellent suggestion that the "real" main limiting factors for an
>> aquarium are mass of fish as adults vs. water surface area of the
>> tank (which is a more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate),
>> with different stocking ratios for Fresh, brackish, salt, (and warm
>> and cold) waters.
>>
>> You could further modify this by multiplier factors considering
>> things
>> like whether additional oxygenation/waste management is available
>> (airstone, planted tank etc), or fractional multipliers for if you're
>> keeping only carnivorous fish (more waste). The main advantage is
>> that you get a better feel for the differences in body types. The
>> drawback is that I haven't found many sources which report
>> average/typical adult fish mass. This is one of them;
>>
>> http://www.aquariumfish.com/aquariumfish/detail.aspx?aid=323&cid=53
>> &search
>>
>> For common freshwater species, that table gives you neons at 0.2g and
>> 7cm discus at 19 g. If anyone knows of other resources which report
>> more adult typical mass values for FW aquarium species, I'd love to
>> see it. I could bring my fish into work, and weigh each immersed in
>> a fixed volume in a graduated cylinder (and then weigh the water
>> afterwards to calculate their mass), but I'd rather save them the
>> stress of such a trip.
>>
>> Even after all that, metabolic rate doesn't scale directly with mass
>> of the fish, but this would be a step in a more accurate direction.
>>
>> DaveZ
>> Atom Weaver
>
> As you said, "water surface area of the tank (which is a
> > more measurable equivalent to oxygen transfer rate)". Oxygen is one
> limiting factor, but this should be determined by the
> filtration/oxygenation equipment you have in the tank, not surface
> area.
>
Hm. Really? I knew that aggressive oxygenation could increase stocking
levels, but I've never heard the claim before that filtration determines
oxygenation levels (determines, as in, "is the primary/key factor"). I
suppose a turbulent flow or any other filtration method that increases the
air-water interface would alter oxygen transfer, but thats just another way
of raising water surface area... If it really was a big factor, one would
expect that sumps would be more popular in FW setups.
I think if you're trying to develop a "rule of thumb" which is improved
over the "inch per gallon" rule system size has to be taken into account
somehow. Trading filtration/oxygenation capacity for surface area (and
indirectly, tank size) doesn't seem like a wise trade off.

> In any case, if you put in a filtration/oxygenation system four times
> the recomended size, you can support more fish and your fish will grow
> faster.
>
> In other words, your recomendations for rules of fish stocking needs
> to take into account factors such as water flow rates, filtration
> effectiveness and oxygenation.
>

Right. Thats what I was getting at, when I wrote:

"You could further modify this by multiplier factors considering things
like whether additional oxygenation/waste management is available
(airstone, planted tank etc), or fractional multipliers for if you're
keeping only carnivorous fish (more waste)."

So, you develop a base stocking guideline which says (and these numbers are
totally arbitrary):

2.5 g of adult fish mass per 10 cm^2 of surface area (assumes a HOB
filter with low turbulence, freshwater, unplanted, 76-78 degF).

Airstone mulitplier is 1.3 (if airstone is properly sized to the tank)
Carnivore/messy eater multiplier is 0.8
Bio wheel multiplier is 1.05
Over feeding multiplier is 0.75
Heavy water change (75%/week) multiplier is 1.2
High temp multiplier is X
Low temp multiplier is Y
etc.

Again, I'm pulling numbers out of thin air, just to demonstrate how the
guideline would work. As I write out the multiplier list, it strikes me
that the more multipliers you apply, the less accurate the guideline would
become.

> On the topic of measuring fish, I always have trouble with the method
> you mentioned. I find it is easier and more accurate to measure the
> length of the fish and the estimate its mass by interpolation. But
> then, I'm a bit of a klutz and my students are even worse. (I first
> discovered the effect of incorrect filter sizes on growth rates when I
> disassembled the tanks we had used for a growth rate experiment that
> failed only to find that the students had mixed up the filters and
> that the filter sizes explained the strange results).

Yeah, I guess I think of the tools I use at work first, rather than trust
to my capabilities of interpolation. I measure polymer densities by the
Eureka-plus-Scale method, and it struck me as a way to do things with fish,
too. :) Something tells me the fish would be less co-operative than the
plastic. Heh.

Thanks for the reply.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver