![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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". |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Absolute Beginners | FishNoob | General | 93 | September 24th 05 06:05 AM |
A sad end to my holiday | Gill Passman | General | 27 | August 10th 05 03:23 AM |
PHYSICAL symptoms of overstocking | Gfishery | General | 26 | April 15th 05 09:38 PM |
Cycling Tank | CapFusion | Reefs | 0 | January 28th 04 09:25 PM |
90 gallon fw not cycling | Michael | General | 9 | September 16th 03 01:06 PM |