A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

Using media and substrate is better, but you will get a certain amount of
bacteria in gunk as well. The bacteria are not fussy about what they adhere
to, so they will adhere to all sorts of debris and particles. When you
swish out dirt and organic out of a filter pan, there will be some bacteria
adhered to a lot of that.

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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". = )~

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.


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

A new tank without cycling
 

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".

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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".

A new tank without cycling
 

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....gen_Cycle.html

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

Jim Morcombe wrote:


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

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

A new tank without cycling
 

"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 ~~~~ }((((({*

A new tank without cycling
 

"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 ~~~~ }((((({*

A new tank without cycling
 

"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 ~~~~ }((((({*

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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 :)

A new tank without cycling
 

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. = /

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

"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 ~~~~ }((((({*

A new tank without cycling
 

Tynk wrote:


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. = /

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 :)

A new tank without cycling
 

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...

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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...

A new tank without cycling
 

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...

A new tank without cycling
 

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.

A new tank without cycling
 

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

A new tank without cycling
 

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...

A new tank without cycling
 

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.