Cycle Question
 

I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

or if I just wait it out---will the tank simply go through the cycle and
bring itself to equalibrium?

Cycle Question
 

StringerBell wrote:
I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

or if I just wait it out---will the tank simply go through the cycle and
bring itself to equalibrium?

If you only have rock and sand, just wait it out. The tank will balance out
eventually.

George Patterson
All successes in conservation are temporary. All defeats are permanent.

Cycle Question
 

StringerBell wrote:
I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

or if I just wait it out---will the tank simply go through the cycle and
bring itself to equalibrium?





Don't do any more water changes. The best thing you could do though is
get a cup or two of sand from another established tank. That will let
you move a good head start of bacteria into your tank and cut the cycle
time way down.

Kim
www.jensalt.com

Cycle Question
 

"kim gross" wrote in message
...
Don't do any more water changes. The best thing you could do though is
get a cup or two of sand from another established tank. That will let
you move a good head start of bacteria into your tank and cut the cycle
time way down.

Thanks for all your advice. The sand in my tank is Carib sea
Agra-Alive---It`s supposed to have bacteria. Should I still get some stuff
from another tank?

Cycle Question
 

People go back and forth on the bagged "live" sand. It's what I did and
things worked out fine, but I'll never know if it was my rock, my chemicals
or what that got me through the cycle. I do know to stop water changes if
you don't have purchased animals to save. You WANT the process to happen as
large or small as the rock, etc. dictates. If you want to speed things up
just throw in Bio-Spira (I've had no experience with this item) or Biozyme
(I've had great experience with this one.) But honestly, don't stress
yourself. You could just sit back and watch...

Go grab a book and do some reading during this phase. One important thing I
learned when starting, everyone has different opinions and techniques on
aquariums. They all may work too. But you cannot take one's advice here
and piece it together with another's advice at different stages. You need
to pick a path and stick to it or you probably will have problems. A book
will give you a full set up advice from start to finish.

B


"StringerBell" wrote in message
...

"kim gross" wrote in message
...
Don't do any more water changes. The best thing you could do though is
get a cup or two of sand from another established tank. That will let
you move a good head start of bacteria into your tank and cut the cycle
time way down.

Thanks for all your advice. The sand in my tank is Carib sea
Agra-Alive---It`s supposed to have bacteria. Should I still get some stuff
from another tank?

Cycle Question
 

"StringerBell" wrote in news:0VhQg.14$V51.6
@newsfe10.lga:

I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

0.25 ppm NH3 is not very high for a cycling live rock tank. Just wait it
out. Trying to water change out all the ammonia will actually hinder the
development of your nitrifying bacteria within your sand and rock--bacteria
needs food in order to populate.

0.25 - 0.5 ppm NH3 is probably the ideal range for cycling live rock. That
puts in you in a range where your rock can populate itself with bacteria
well, but the levels are not so high that they are likely to cause a
massive sloughing off of dead material from the rock. If your NH3 levels
get very high you will lose some of the good stuff that comes with uncured
rock and it will take much longer to regenerate all that beauty it has in a
natural living reef.

I suggest you continue doing water changes only when it is necessary to
remove any dead rotting material that is sloughing off the rock. You can
try using a turkey baster to get that material out of deep crevices, but
don't be too aggressive with it less you remove desirable living material
too.

A good protein skimmer and active carbon can help prevent sky-rocketing NH3
levels too by removing organic sludge before it gets broken down, but once
the rock is cured I would skip using the carbon unless there is a specific
need for it.

Cycle Question
 

Go to your LFS (Local Fish Store) and have them give/sell you a couple
cups of the sand and grunge
out of the bottom of one of their tanks. Or if you have any friends with
established tanks, snag a couple
cups from one of them. There is some question to those "live sealed &
bagged sands". I don't doubt they work,
but for no more trouble of getting a couple cups from a tank you know is
established. I'd do that also.

StringerBell wrote:

"kim gross" wrote in message
...


Don't do any more water changes. The best thing you could do though is
get a cup or two of sand from another established tank. That will let
you move a good head start of bacteria into your tank and cut the cycle
time way down.



Thanks for all your advice. The sand in my tank is Carib sea
Agra-Alive---It`s supposed to have bacteria. Should I still get some stuff
from another tank?





--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove -SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

Cycle Question
 

"StringerBell" wrote in
:

Thanks for all your advice. The sand in my tank is Carib sea
Agra-Alive---It`s supposed to have bacteria. Should I still get some
stuff from another tank?

What you have is adequate. Adding some live stand from a well established
tank may help introduce a good quantity of handy micro-fauna to your tank
too, but you may want to wait until your current setup gets the NH3 under
control first.

Cycle Question
 

Wow,
this place is great---everyone is so helpful.

I guess it`s a good idea to let the tank percolate a bit.
I thought I was seeing a lot of air bubbles----but I think I am seeing
"pods" ---something very new to me. There are hundreds of them----- am I
right for taking that as a good sign? They are so tiny it`s hard for me to
visually identify if they are animals or not.
Also---there seems to be stuff on the walls of the tank---like super-tiny
snails-Is that possible?
----- again---they are so small I cant really discern if this is the case.


"dc" wrote in message
...
"StringerBell" wrote in news:0VhQg.14$V51.6
@newsfe10.lga:

I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

0.25 ppm NH3 is not very high for a cycling live rock tank. Just wait it
out. Trying to water change out all the ammonia will actually hinder the
development of your nitrifying bacteria within your sand and
rock--bacteria
needs food in order to populate.

0.25 - 0.5 ppm NH3 is probably the ideal range for cycling live rock.
That
puts in you in a range where your rock can populate itself with bacteria
well, but the levels are not so high that they are likely to cause a
massive sloughing off of dead material from the rock. If your NH3 levels
get very high you will lose some of the good stuff that comes with uncured
rock and it will take much longer to regenerate all that beauty it has in
a
natural living reef.

I suggest you continue doing water changes only when it is necessary to
remove any dead rotting material that is sloughing off the rock. You can
try using a turkey baster to get that material out of deep crevices, but
don't be too aggressive with it less you remove desirable living material
too.

A good protein skimmer and active carbon can help prevent sky-rocketing
NH3
levels too by removing organic sludge before it gets broken down, but once
the rock is cured I would skip using the carbon unless there is a specific
need for it.

Cycle Question
 

Like most of the responses you are getting,....leave it alone and let nature
take it's course. You will notice as you go along that you will most likely
notice trace amounts of amonia after every new addition. Stock slowly and
let your nitrifying bacteria catch up to the biological load.
Glenda :0)
The sea-witch of wise county

"dc" wrote in message
...
"StringerBell" wrote in news:0VhQg.14$V51.6
@newsfe10.lga:

I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

0.25 ppm NH3 is not very high for a cycling live rock tank. Just wait it
out. Trying to water change out all the ammonia will actually hinder the
development of your nitrifying bacteria within your sand and
rock--bacteria
needs food in order to populate.

0.25 - 0.5 ppm NH3 is probably the ideal range for cycling live rock.
That
puts in you in a range where your rock can populate itself with bacteria
well, but the levels are not so high that they are likely to cause a
massive sloughing off of dead material from the rock. If your NH3 levels
get very high you will lose some of the good stuff that comes with uncured
rock and it will take much longer to regenerate all that beauty it has in
a
natural living reef.

I suggest you continue doing water changes only when it is necessary to
remove any dead rotting material that is sloughing off the rock. You can
try using a turkey baster to get that material out of deep crevices, but
don't be too aggressive with it less you remove desirable living material
too.

A good protein skimmer and active carbon can help prevent sky-rocketing
NH3
levels too by removing organic sludge before it gets broken down, but once
the rock is cured I would skip using the carbon unless there is a specific
need for it.

Cycle Question
 

StringerBell wrote on 9/21/2006 8:35 AM:
Thanks for all your advice. The sand in my tank is Carib sea
Agra-Alive---It`s supposed to have bacteria. Should I still get some stuff
from another tank?

The key word is that it's *supposed* to. :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Cycle Question
 

StringerBell wrote:
"kim gross" wrote in message
...

Don't do any more water changes. The best thing you could do though is
get a cup or two of sand from another established tank. That will let
you move a good head start of bacteria into your tank and cut the cycle
time way down.


Thanks for all your advice. The sand in my tank is Carib sea
Agra-Alive---It`s supposed to have bacteria. Should I still get some stuff
from another tank?


Yes if you can get some real live sand, that baged live sand is not what
I concider live sand.

Kim

Cycle Question
 

"what is the ED50 for this?"

That's LD50, not ED50. Typo sorry!

Cycle Question
 

"Stoutman" .@. wrote in
m:

I am not sure what you mean by "make it harder", but if you are
implying that high NH3 levels kill the nitrobacter than what is the
ED50 for this? Furthermore, is the ED50 less than the maximum
concentration of NH3 that is normally reached during cycling? Is this
something you found out after doing some research on your own? Heehee
hee heee, snicker! :)

I've heard this claim before--Wayne Sallee did not just pull it out of his
ass through personal or unscientific observation. I believe there is
research out there to back it up.

I am uncertain myself if there is a direct relationship between the levels
of free ammonia and the efficacy of nitric bacterium or an indirect one in
which the relationship is as simple as the fact that the conversion of
nitrite into nitrate requires more oxygen and more energy than the
conversion of ammonia into nitrite and therefore nitrous bacterium have
easier access to available oxygen. Hopefully the previous poster can
produce some referenced material to clear this up.

Btw... according to recently published research done by Tetra the long held
believe that nitrosomonas and nitrobacter are the main bacteria responcible
for the nitrogen cycle in aquaria is false. Tetra research found that
bacteria belonging to completely other sets are doing the bulk of the work,
namely Nitrosococcus and Nitrospira.

Here's a link: http://www.marineland.com/science/nspira.asp

Cycle Question
 

I am not sure what you mean by "make it harder", but if you are
implying that high NH3 levels kill the nitrobacter than what is the
ED50 for this? Furthermore, is the ED50 less than the maximum
concentration of NH3 that is normally reached during cycling? Is this
something you found out after doing some research on your own? Heehee
hee heee, snicker! :)

I've heard this claim before--Wayne Sallee did not just pull it out of his
ass through personal or unscientific observation. I believe there is
research out there to back it up.

Than you must know what he means by "real high ammonia levels makes it
harder on the bacteria"?? I sure don't What do you think he means by "make
it harder"?

I would love to read some literature on this phenomenon.


I am uncertain myself if there is a direct relationship between the levels
of free ammonia and the efficacy of nitric bacterium

I am not aware of any literature that claims that high concentrations of
ammonia (within the realm of a normal cycling) decreases the efficiency of
nitrobacter to metabolise NO2-.

Read the link I provided (first one I came across, I'm sure there are
others) under the heading nitrifying bacteria on the relationship between
NH3 and microbe population. They state (as I have) that the concentration
of the nitrifiers (bacteria) depends on the rate (increased rates yield
increased concentrations) of NH3 production. The faster the rate (and thus
the greater the concentration) the higher the population of both microbes
(nitrobacter and nitrosomonas).

http://www.cci.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C...thotrophs.html

or an indirect one in
which the relationship is as simple as the fact that the conversion of
nitrite into nitrate requires more oxygen and more energy than the
conversion of ammonia into nitrite and therefore nitrous bacterium have
easier access to available oxygen.

You are missing the entire point as to why these bacteria are metabolising
NH3 and NO2- in the first place. This process of converting NH3 into NO2-
and NO2- into NO3- does NOT consume energy it PRODUCES energy. This is how
these bacteria produce their metabolic energy (ATP).

I'm not sure which bacteria (nitrobacter or nitrosomona) consume the most
o2.

Hopefully the previous poster can
produce some referenced material to clear this up.

Doubtful

Cycle Question
 

Btw... according to recently published research done by Tetra the long
held
believe that nitrosomonas and nitrobacter are the main bacteria
responcible
for the nitrogen cycle in aquaria is false. Tetra research found that
bacteria belonging to completely other sets are doing the bulk of the
work,
namely Nitrosococcus and Nitrospira.

Here's a link: http://www.marineland.com/science/nspira.asp

Keep reading. I'm willing to bet there findings have a lot to do with there
samples.

read this abstract published in 2005
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m

excerpt:
"In the Seine River estuary, especially in the salinity gradient, the
Nitrobacter proportion increases and that of Nitrospira disappears, possibly
due dilution by seawater."

Cycle Question
 

"Stoutman" .@. wrote in :


between NH3 and microbe population. They state (as I have) that the
concentration of the nitrifiers (bacteria) depends on the rate
(increased rates yield increased concentrations) of NH3 production.
The faster the rate (and thus the greater the concentration) the
higher the population of both microbes (nitrobacter and nitrosomonas).

You're incorrectly inferring that a high rate of production means a high
concentration of free NH3. The article is saying that bacteria will
increase their population density in response to an increase in the
availability of their food source. This is natural and to be expected.

Here's the quote:

"The concentration of nitrifiers depends upon the rate of NH3
production in the surrounding environment. The faster the rate, the higher
the population of microbes."

This says nothing about the concentration of measurable NH3 or the effect
the amount of measurable NH3 has on the overall conversion of NH3 into NO3-
in a new system, only that in an established system were the production of
NH3 is high the population of bacteria found using it as a food source will
also be high. In either an established low rate or a high rate environment
the amount of measurable NH3 is likely to be the same, ~0 ppm. We are
talking about fledgling cultures while the article is talking about mature
ones.

Here's another quote for you... I managed to dig it out of an article
published in the Plant and Soil journal in 1972.

"Summary: ...ammonium concentrations in excess of 200 ppm N
reinforced population imbalances conductive to accumulation of nitrite over
time in mixed cultures of Nitrosomonas europaea and Nitrobacter agilis.
Nitrate production proceeded at a low, linear rate characteristic for a
nonproliferating population, indicating a bacteriostatic effect of ammonium
or free ammonia on growth of Nitrobacter rather than an inhibitory effect
on nitrite oxidation."

I guess it is a direct effect after all.



You are missing the entire point as to why these bacteria are
metabolising NH3 and NO2- in the first place. This process of

This point is moot to the topic being discussed.

Either way it was merely a misuse of terms on my part. I fully understand
WHY nitric bacteria do what they do. I was not referring to a greater
demand for metabolic energy. A greater need for resources would have been
a more appropriate term to use in that context.



I'm not sure which bacteria (nitrobacter or nitrosomona) consume the
most o2.

I'm not sure either; it was just a guess or a suggestion at a possible
reason for lack of a documented explanation at the time.



Hopefully the previous poster can
produce some referenced material to clear this up.

Doubtful

What is the point of such a glib attitude in a community where the aim is
the sharing of experience and knowledge?

Is it merely to polish your own ego?

Cycle Question
 

Yep, people tend to think that there is one bacteria that
do this, and one bacteria that do that, but there are many
strains of bacteria on this earth, and I'm sure many
strains not yet discovered. And take plants for example,
think about how many different environments that plants
are able to grow, and many of those plants environments
overlap. I think that to think that this does not happen
with bacteria, is a limiting thought.

As far as high levels of ammonia being hard on the
bacteria that oxidize nitrite into nitrate, it is my
observation over the many years of fish keeping. Naturally
we are talking about real high levels of ammonia here.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



dc wrote on 9/21/2006 10:29 PM:
"Stoutman" .@. wrote in
m:

I am not sure what you mean by "make it harder", but if you are
implying that high NH3 levels kill the nitrobacter than what is the
ED50 for this? Furthermore, is the ED50 less than the maximum
concentration of NH3 that is normally reached during cycling? Is this
something you found out after doing some research on your own? Heehee
hee heee, snicker! :)

I've heard this claim before--Wayne Sallee did not just pull it out of his
ass through personal or unscientific observation. I believe there is
research out there to back it up.

I am uncertain myself if there is a direct relationship between the levels
of free ammonia and the efficacy of nitric bacterium or an indirect one in
which the relationship is as simple as the fact that the conversion of
nitrite into nitrate requires more oxygen and more energy than the
conversion of ammonia into nitrite and therefore nitrous bacterium have
easier access to available oxygen. Hopefully the previous poster can
produce some referenced material to clear this up.

Btw... according to recently published research done by Tetra the long held
believe that nitrosomonas and nitrobacter are the main bacteria responcible
for the nitrogen cycle in aquaria is false. Tetra research found that
bacteria belonging to completely other sets are doing the bulk of the work,
namely Nitrosococcus and Nitrospira.

Here's a link: http://www.marineland.com/science/nspira.asp

Cycle Question
 

And if a person does not want to do water changes to
reduce the ammonia levels to keep them from being terribly
hight, I dont' care. It's their rock. They can do what
ever they want to, but if it's my rock, I'm going to keep
the ammonia levels from getting too high, as I want what's
still alive on the rock to remain alive.

Even if it were to cause the cycle to take longer, which I
do not believe, so what. If it's my rock, I want what's
still alive on the rock to stay alive. And I find it odd
when people don't want to try to keep alive what's still
alive on the rock.

Another option is to reduce the needed water changes by
vigorous aeration by using a venturi on the pump. This
helps drive off excess ammonia. It does however have the
downside effect of creating salt creep, and putting more
corrosive salt into the air.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Cycle Question
 

"Stoutman" .@. wrote in
m:

Here's another quote for you... I managed to dig it out of an article
published in the Plant and Soil journal in 1972.

"Summary: ...ammonium concentrations in excess of 200 ppm N
reinforced population imbalances conductive to accumulation of
nitrite over
time in mixed cultures of Nitrosomonas europaea and Nitrobacter
agilis. Nitrate production proceeded at a low, linear rate
characteristic for a nonproliferating population, indicating a
bacteriostatic effect of ammonium
or free ammonia on growth of Nitrobacter rather than an inhibitory
effect on nitrite oxidation."

Just because nitrate production proceeded at a linear rate with
accumulation of nitrite over time does not imply that NH3 production
hinders the ability of nitrobacter to metabolize nitrite.

No it doesn't. What the study found is that the high levels of NH3 do not
hinder the ability of Nitrobacter to oxidize NO2-, but rather it has a
bacteriostatic effect, meaning it inhibits the growth of Nitrobacter in
that environment. The rate of conversation of NH3 into NO2- increased in
the experiment indicating a proliferation of Nitrosomonas in that
environment, however the conversion of NO2- into NO3- proceeded at a linear
rate indicating a nonproliferation of Nitrobacter in that same environment.

They study ran another experiment in which they infused a medium with both
bacterial strains and then enriched each with a graded dose of NH3 and NO2-
in order to populate the medium, after which they increased the
concentration of available NH3 as they did in the previous experiment.
What they found is that the NH3 was converted into NO3- with no measurable
levels of NO2- detected, confirming what was indicated in the previous
study. Established Nitrobacter is able to oxidize its food source
perfectly well in concentrated NH3 environment.


How do they know that the bacteriostatic effect they are describing is
a result of high NH3 concentration? Is this discussed in the
publication or are they making assumptions?

Does the nitrate production proceed at an increased rate as the NH3
concentration drops? This would support their claim.

It was a controlled experiment that took place under laboratory conditions.
The variable in the experiment was the amount of NH3 given to the cultures.
The rate of proliferation of Nitrobacter was found to be directly effected
by the concentration of NH3. So yes, the rate of conversion of NO2- into
NO3- increased in relation to low NH3 concentrations.

You may be able to find the article yourself at a local university library.

Title: Bacteriostatic effect of ammonium on Nitrobacter agilis in mixed
culture with Nitrosomonas europaea
Journal: Plant and Soil
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Subject: Biomedical and Life Sciences and Earth and Environmental Science
Issue: Volume 36, Numbers 1-3 / February, 1972
Pages 521-527


I am not being glib, but I will admit I come off harsh at times. My
apologies.

Understood, perhaps I judged too quickly. I apologize as well.

Cycle Question
 

How do they know that the bacteriostatic effect they are describing is
a result of high NH3 concentration? Is this discussed in the
publication or are they making assumptions?

Does the nitrate production proceed at an increased rate as the NH3
concentration drops? This would support their claim.

It was a controlled experiment that took place under laboratory
conditions.
The variable in the experiment was the amount of NH3 given to the
cultures.
The rate of proliferation of Nitrobacter was found to be directly effected
by the concentration of NH3. So yes, the rate of conversion of NO2- into
NO3- increased in relation to low NH3 concentrations.

Ok. I was not aware of the bacteriostatic effect of NH3 on nitrobacter. I
have not read the article you are referring to, but I will trust that you
HAVE and didn't just read the ABSTRACT.

I was not able to find any other literature support for this phenomenon
which may or not be an indication of the invalidity of the '1972'
publication you referenced.

Going back to the original OP's concern with high ammonia concentration
levels and doing a water change.
I stated that doing a water change would dilute the ammonia and the bacteria
would proliferate more slowly.

If a high ammonia concentration is only BACTERIOSTATIC and not BACTERIOCIDAL
to the nitrobacter than allowing the high ammonia concentration to fall via
the nitrosomonas to NO2- will not cause any harm. (REMEMBER he said his
tank has NO fish yet). Once NO2- begins to form the nitrobacter already
present will begin to proliferate and metabolise the NO2- to NO3-. Once the
NH3 reaches the critical bacteriostatic concentration the nitrobacter will
continue to metabolise the rising concentration of NO2- at their current
population. Once the NH3 levels begin to fall below the bacteriostatic
concentration the nitrobacter will begin to proliferate again and continue
to metabolise the remaining NO2-.

If you REALLY read that article and gave the correct facts, than I stand
corrected and draw the following conclusions:

(A) Performing a water change will dilute the nitrobacter's food source and
slow/stop bacterial proliferation.
(B) Performing NO water change, will allow the NH3 concentration to go up
(nitrobacter proliferation slowed/stopped) and come back down via
nitrobacter.

Both (A) and (B) 'most likely' have the SAME net effect, a slower
nitrobacter proliferation.

If given a choice between changing tank water and doing nothing and having
the same net effect, I will pick doing nothing.

Cycle Question
 

Correction:
(B) should have read "and come back down via nitrosomonas" not nitrobacter.
Oops.

(B) Performing NO water change, will allow the NH3 concentration to go up
(nitrobacter proliferation slowed/stopped) and come back down via
nitrobacter.

Cycle Question
 

Stoutman wrote on 9/22/2006 5:55 PM:
(A) Performing a water change will dilute the nitrobacter's food source and
slow/stop bacterial proliferation.
(B) Performing NO water change, will allow the NH3 concentration to go up
(nitrobacter proliferation slowed/stopped) and come back down via
nitrobacter.

Both (A) and (B) 'most likely' have the SAME net effect, a slower
nitrobacter proliferation.

If given a choice between changing tank water and doing nothing and having
the same net effect, I will pick doing nothing.


Doing a water change percentage sufficient to reduce the
levels of ammonia and nitrite to levels that won't kill
off the remaining life, will still leave plenty of food
for the bacteria. Keep in mind that the rock when pulled
out of the ocean had plenty of bacteria to support a load
of fish. What changed was that stuff on the rock died.
Once the dead stuff is finished rotting, the rock will
once again support a load of fish.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Cycle Question
 

Doing a water change percentage sufficient to reduce the
levels of ammonia and nitrite to levels that won't kill off the remaining
life, will still leave plenty of food for the bacteria. Keep in mind that
the rock when pulled out of the ocean had plenty of bacteria to support a
load of fish. What changed was that stuff on the rock died. Once the dead
stuff is finished rotting, the rock will once again support a load of
fish.

The 'Key' here is doing the correct percentage of water change.

You will have to perform a water change that reduces the NH3 concentration
just below the bacteriostatic levels for the nitrobacter, but not to low as
to stunt the proliferation of the nitrosomonas.

This sounds like a tricky balancing act.

Why bother ? Let it run its course.





Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Cycle Question
 

The answer is that if it is my rock, I'm going to keep
alive what is still alive. Some people might not be
interested in that, but I have always found that strange.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Stoutman wrote on 9/22/2006 6:12 PM:
Doing a water change percentage sufficient to reduce the
levels of ammonia and nitrite to levels that won't kill off the remaining
life, will still leave plenty of food for the bacteria. Keep in mind that
the rock when pulled out of the ocean had plenty of bacteria to support a
load of fish. What changed was that stuff on the rock died. Once the dead
stuff is finished rotting, the rock will once again support a load of
fish.

The 'Key' here is doing the correct percentage of water change.

You will have to perform a water change that reduces the NH3 concentration
just below the bacteriostatic levels for the nitrobacter, but not to low as
to stunt the proliferation of the nitrosomonas.

This sounds like a tricky balancing act.

Why bother ? Let it run its course.




Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

Cycle Question
 

No protein skimmer ???
Run a protein skimmer if you are cycling your tank with uncured rock.
24/7

"StringerBell" wrote in message
...
I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

or if I just wait it out---will the tank simply go through the cycle and
bring itself to equalibrium?

Cycle Question
 

But that would take the food for the bacteria out :-) hehehe

Yep running a protein skimmer is highly recommend.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



TheRock wrote on 9/23/2006 2:35 PM:
No protein skimmer ???
Run a protein skimmer if you are cycling your tank with uncured rock.
24/7

"StringerBell" wrote in message
...
I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

or if I just wait it out---will the tank simply go through the cycle and
bring itself to equalibrium?

Cycle Question
 

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
k.net...
But that would take the food for the bacteria out :-) hehehe

No it won't.



Yep running a protein skimmer is highly recommend.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



TheRock wrote on 9/23/2006 2:35 PM:
No protein skimmer ???
Run a protein skimmer if you are cycling your tank with uncured rock.
24/7

"StringerBell" wrote in message
...
I did a partial water change yesterday and the ammonia is still at .25.
Should I keep doing water changes? (theres only live rock and sand)

or if I just wait it out---will the tank simply go through the cycle and
bring itself to equalibrium?

Cycle Question
 

Puddy wrote:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
k.net...
But that would take the food for the bacteria out :-) hehehe

No it won't.

Wayne is joking about things said in other threads. That's why there's a smilie.

George Patterson
All successes in conservation are temporary. All defeats are permanent.

Cycle Question
 

Yep, and yes it does take food away from the bacteria, but
that's a good thing. The nice thing about protein
skimmers, is that it takes the organics out of the water
before the bacteria can break it down, whereas a
mechanical filter traps food, and the bacteria start
feeding on it because it is not actually removed from the
water.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



George Patterson wrote on 9/23/2006 4:08 PM:
Puddy wrote:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
k.net...
But that would take the food for the bacteria out :-) hehehe

No it won't.

Wayne is joking about things said in other threads. That's why there's a
smilie.

George Patterson
All successes in conservation are temporary. All defeats are
permanent.

Cycle Question
 

If there was only a way to make the organics smell better,
I just dropped a container full in my closet...YUCK !!!
barf

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
link.net...
Yep, and yes it does take food away from the bacteria, but that's a good
thing. The nice thing about protein skimmers, is that it takes the
organics out of the water before the bacteria can break it down, whereas a
mechanical filter traps food, and the bacteria start feeding on it because
it is not actually removed from the water.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



George Patterson wrote on 9/23/2006 4:08 PM:
Puddy wrote:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
k.net...
But that would take the food for the bacteria out :-) hehehe

No it won't.

Wayne is joking about things said in other threads. That's why there's a
smilie.

George Patterson
All successes in conservation are temporary. All defeats are
permanent.

Cycle Question
 

All Ive Ive got on my cycling 65 gallon tank is a good protein skimmer
(powered by a maxi-jet 1200), two more maxi-jets for water flow, and about
80 lbs of rock.
The consensus of internet-help-givers have, for the moment, convinced me not
to splurge on a wet-dry filter.

Cycle Question
 

LOL Yea that does stink. I once spilled about 5 pounds of
live black worms (similar to tubifex) on the carpet in the
bathroom here at the store.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



TheRock wrote on 9/23/2006 8:09 PM:
If there was only a way to make the organics smell better,
I just dropped a container full in my closet...YUCK !!!
barf

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
link.net...
Yep, and yes it does take food away from the bacteria, but that's a good
thing. The nice thing about protein skimmers, is that it takes the
organics out of the water before the bacteria can break it down, whereas a
mechanical filter traps food, and the bacteria start feeding on it because
it is not actually removed from the water.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



George Patterson wrote on 9/23/2006 4:08 PM:
Puddy wrote:
"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message
k.net...
But that would take the food for the bacteria out :-) hehehe
No it won't.
Wayne is joking about things said in other threads. That's why there's a
smilie.

George Patterson
All successes in conservation are temporary. All defeats are
permanent.

Cycle Question
 

* TheRock wrote, On 9/23/2006 7:09 PM:
If there was only a way to make the organics smell better,
I just dropped a container full in my closet...YUCK !!!
barf

EEEeeuw. Have fun cleaning that.
You can get stuff at the pet store in the dog section to neutralize odors that
works really well. Might try it if you can't get the stench out of the carpet.

Cindy