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.

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".

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.

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".

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

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

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

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

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.

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.