Is Cycling a tank useless

A little provoking, perhaps, but it is an honest hypothesis. I hope the hypothesis can offer some insights for everyone that enjoys the hobby and cares about their fish. It feels a bit like arguing the world is actually flat, not round. Or the other way.

The N Cycle​

Biology has a lot of cycles. Nitrogen (N) cycle is one of them. Cycling is a continuous process where ammonia is excreted by animals, as a byproduct of protein metabolism, and also released from decaying organic matter. The ammonia is assimilated by plants, algae, fungi and micro-organisms. These organisms are consumed by other (heterotrophic) organisms. This is how N enters fish again. This is the N cycle in a nutshell.

Cycling a tank​

The assumption by many hobbyists

When it comes to cycling a tank, all eyes are on the micro-organisms. The so-called beneficial bacteria.

An ammonia source enters the water column. "Beneficial bacteria A" convert the ammonia to nitrites. "Beneficial bacteria B" convert the nitrites to nitrates.
This happens mostly in the mediafilter.

Once you measure only nitrates, the cycle is done. By cleaning your filter and conducting water changes, you take out the nitrates.

The assumption by science and some hobbyists

The beneficial bacteria consume oxygen and don't require a lot of physical space. They reside in biofilms as the bottom layer. In biofilms, oxygen is pretty much depleted by these and other bacteria. Hence, these biofilms prefer oxygen rich areas. The benefits of an over-sized canister filter with the best filter media in the world, is silly and driven by suppliers and retailers. You need good flow of oxygen-rich water. Inside a filter or outside the filter (so inside the tank) -it doesn't matter.

(Or you need plants. They take care of ammonia AND they offer oxygen. In planted tanks, any filter plays the second violin.)

These beneficial bacteria appear to be many different species. Depending on water parameters (KH, temperature, oxygen), certain species dominate over other species. And species that appear initially in a tank, are very likely not the same species that we see a few months later. The bacteria that convert ammonia to nitrites might be taken over completely by bacteria that convert ammonia directly to nitrates. And, technically, some or perhaps all of these bacteria might not even be bacteria, but archaea.

Hence, it is fairly useless to direct the cycling process. Just sit and wait. Like you would when releasing and testing ammonia the whole time.

Ammonia toxicity​

When people test the water for ammonia, they assume that ammonia in the water is dangerous to fish. This is not true. Ammonia is dangerous inside fish. Ammonia is a byproduct of protein metabolism, that fish want to get rid off. Almost all freshwater fish excrete ammonia mostly through the gills. As long as fish are able to excrete ammonia, they are fine. When fish no longer are able to, it becomes dangerous. Ammonia builds up and causes damage.

One way it causes damage is ammonia, as NH4, interfering with potassium channels.

NH4....? Isn't this supposed to be the non-toxic part of ammonia?

Inside fish, ammonia is mostly present as NH4 because of the internal pH (7-8). NH4 becomes toxic when it starts to build up.

Due to the workings of the gills, ammonia passes the gill membranes as NH3 - the "toxic part". NH4 doesn't pass the membranes in freshwater fish.
Because the pH of the water is most often below 8, the NH3 converts to NH4 in the water.

NH4 is considered non-toxic because it doesn't pass the gill membranes. NH3 is considered toxic, because it passes the gill membranes.

When ammonia becomes dangerous

What happens if the pH of the water surpasses the pH of the fish's blood? This is the crux.

Fish are no longer able to excrete ammonia as NH3, and ammonia, as NH4, starts to build-up inside the fish.

So while you are occupied measuring the ammonia in water, fish don't really care about it. As long as they are able to excrete ammonia through the gills.

Fish in high pH environments

If you add most freshwater fish species in a pH 9+ environment, they will die. Some freshwater species hail from high pH environments and have evolved various mechanisms to deal with ammonia. One of the mechanisms is the conversion of ammonia into urea.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This thread was more intended as a discussion thread. I'm very much interested in reading about cases where ammonia poisoning is actually seen.

Statements like, "ammonia shows up on my test strip and now all fish are dead", are plain silly. NH4 inside the fish's blood was X and now the fish are dead, makes sense. But we cannot measure this easily of course. That doesn't make a water test strip a quick and dirty substitute.

I agree that if you measure ammonia after 3 months, your tank has serious issues and is not a healthy environment for fish. But this is part of the oxygen cycle (O) discussion. In which case, measuring ammonia is a quick and dirty substitute for oxygen.

OK, enough for now.

That makes sense bc I have read that low ph means ammonia isn’t toxic

 

OMG! Did you really read that . First one wasn’t available second is very long but nice graphs .Probably lots of great info. But…… ok sorry. I just going to continue changing my water . I failed science . Had no idea of the nitrogen cycle till I joined here.

But I do like reading your posts and understand the importance of science. I do appreciate what you and sparky and Mac and TClare add to this sire. Most I can figure out. But what does bothers me is the scientific names you guys use when mentioning fish. Astronotus ocellated is a cichlid that may be good for that size tank. It’s an Oscar . Can’t we just use common names .

Science can seem intimidating, but it’s not meant to be. It really just boils down to being reasonable and making sure we’re talking about measurements in the same way.

The reason some prefer latin/greek scientific names is to remove ambiguity, since some common names refer to multiple species.

I tend to use scientific names when it’s needed to specify. I use common names also because they tend to be easier to type and I can’t always remember how to spell the scientific name.

 

I use scientific names mostly because I don't know the English names of a lot of species yet.

Back to topic:

Because nitrites are initially always measured by hobbyists, it seems to me it takes a while before COMAMMOX Nitrospira colonizes our tanks.

I didn't have the chance to read this article yet ... but any chance they mention, or maybe you know, if they also convert ammonia FASTER than Nitrosomas?

That might be one of the factors why aged tanks are so incredibly stable agains algae.

That article seems worth to print and take a long bath with a glass or 2 of wine next weekend.

 

When I read scientific papers and read this forum, they seem to be world aparts. I'm not referring to language and procedures used, but about how things that affect our hobby are viewed.

I think it's fun and interesting to get some of this science into this forum.

I don't know and understand all the science myself. Far from it. Neither do active scientists by the way. It is just too broad and too complex. Hence, all the disciplines. Hence, there is not one source.

I already learned something about chlorid cells in gills from this thread. Makes me want to further dive in.

Good deal, thanks!

 

That makes sense bc I have read that low ph means ammonia isn’t toxic

Depends if you refer to the internal environment of the fish ("inside the fish") or the external environment ("the water").

Internal environment: the "non-toxic" NH4 is toxic.

Here's a reference: Ammonia Production, Excretion, Toxicity, and Defense in Fish: A Review

You need a bottle for this read Zer0Fame

Edit: wrong reference. Here's the correct one:
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physrev.00050.2003

"Because the pH of fish blood and intracellular fluid is over one unit below the pK of ammonia (∼9–10) (76), ∼95% of Tamm (total ammonia) exists as NH4+ in fish tissues."

"The most acute effects of ammonia are probably related to the ability of its ionic form, NH4+, to substitute for K+ in ion transporters and disrupt electrochemical gradients in central nervous systems (125)."

 

Keep 'em coming, the shelf is still full!

 

Lots of reading to do tonight!

 

Lots of reading to do tonight!

But football is on .

 

Statements like, "ammonia shows up on my test strip and now all fish are dead", are plain silly. NH4 inside the fish's blood was X and now the fish are dead, makes sense. But we cannot measure this easily of course. That doesn't make a water test strip a quick and dirty substitute.

I agree that if you measure ammonia after 3 months, your tank has serious issues and is not a healthy environment for fish. But this is part of the oxygen cycle (O) discussion. In which case, measuring ammonia is a quick and dirty substitute for oxygen.

There is too much emphasis on testing for stuff that is poison. But we should emphasize the tests for oxygen, and salinity and GH and KH. These are things that must be in the water in most tanks to sustain life.

If you have these things your tank will cycle easily and automatically:

- Oxygen should be 8 ppm. Fish die at 2-4 ppm. The margin is very thin here. Most tanks are too low. This low oxygen leads to sensitivity to ammonia. Many aquarium additives consume oxygen, including dechlorinators. Oxygen is required for life including the bio-filter.

- Salinity (certain amount) is able to protect fish gills from nitrite. This is well established in aquaculture. Brackish fish need salinity.

- GH is needed for many hardwater fish due to their kidneys. Many crustaceans shells will dissolve without enough GH in the water.

- KH in most tanks must be above zero to keep the the cycle going. I have helped many folks get their cycle back after a KH crash, ammonia spike and dead fish. But the ammonia was not the problem the lack of KH was the problem.


Rather than focusing on testing for the toxins, we need to make sure folks have these necessary ingredients. Then the cycle will take care of itself.

I agree Rudd, we have made ammonia a surrogate. But it is really not the key.

 

How ammonia is gill processed doesn't seem to have much to do with external & presumably internal, ammonia burns.

How do these burns, if they are not mistaken for hemorrhagic septicemia bacteria, appear in fish?

The gills deserve more credits. They partly function as kidneys too.

Ammonia poisoning is induced by ammonia in the environment. Aquaculture studies make this irrefutably clear.

Are the gills solely responsible as mediating factor? I don't know. But the studies I read all point the finger on issues related to ammonia excretion via the gills (see below).
In which case ammonia is no longer excreted, but inhibited or the flux is inversed.

And what environmental conditions, besides ammonia concentration, affects the workings of the gills? pH, temperature, salinity...

From what Ive read, NH+ is excreted through exchange with other positive ions in water. NH3 is excreted via gills which has a thin layer of acidic co2 coating -> as NH3 exits it encounters the acidic layer and turns into NH+ and cannot go back in the membrane. So fish excrete NH3 by simply breathing more.

Problem is in higher pH the co2 layer is thinner, less NH3 turns into NH+ so fish has to breathe more. There will be a point where fish is exhausted or cannot keep up the excretion with ammonia production and dies.

Here in Toronto's hard alkaline waters, fish will die very quickly in brand new tanks. The difference between cycled and cycling is very noticeable. Conversely, Ive also setup tanks in Beijing, China where the tap water was soft and sometimes close to rainwater. In those soft acidic waters I put fish in day 1 and my first tank was a success. No need to cycle at all. All I did was weekly water changes.

I think geography plays a big role and our experiences may differ depending on the kinds of water available to us

Thanks for this.

Passive NH3 diffusion seemed (to me) the most common mechanims (or perhaps most studied...). Turns out, this is outdated info (science progresses pretty fast).

That said, I continue to read statements as the following:

"The build-up of high environmental ammonia (HEA) can become a serious threat for aquatic animals, including fish, and affects the performance of fish in several ways. Various reports suggest that at HEA, ammonia excretion through the fish gills is hindered and/or there is a net uptake of ammonia from the environment (see Ip and Chew, 2010; Wright and Wood, 2009 for reviews). This leads to a situation where fish are confronted simultaneously with accumulation of endogenous ammonia production and uptake of exogenous ammonia. Consequently, ammonia levels in the blood and tissue increases which induce a range of ecotoxicological effects."

Physiological insights into largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) survival during long-term exposure to high environmental ammonia

In which case the clickbait "cycling is useless" could be true, provided pH stays below ~pH8 (and we solely focus on ammonia). If the NH3 concentration in water exceeds the concentration at the branchial epithelium (gills), the above happens.

In this particular study:

Lethal (this is a common procedure in toxicology: where they raise a certain concentration until 50% dies within 96 hrs.... yes, science....):
33 ppm ammonia (that is a little more than "our" 2 ppm) = 1.15 NH3 (25C / pH 7.8)

(there seems to be huge differences between fish species)

(pH 7.8 relates to the KH - CO2 - pH equilibrium at (current) atmospheric pressure; in other words, the average pH of water in a tank if you take out all life)

Stress: 8.31 ppm ammonia:

Ammonia excretion rate was severely inhibited following 7 days of exposure.

To be continued...

Will dive into those other excretion mechanisms, cherryshrimp pointed out, with CO2 (pH) as mediating factor.

 

How do these burns, if they are not mistaken for hemorrhagic septicemia bacteria, appear in fish?

The gills deserve more credits. They partly function as kidneys too.

Ammonia poisoning is induced by ammonia in the environment. Aquaculture studies make this irrefutably clear.

Are the gills solely responsible as mediating factor? I don't know. But the studies I read all point the finger on issues related to ammonia excretion via the gills (see below).
In which case ammonia is no longer excreted, but inhibited or the flux is inversed.

And what environmental conditions, besides ammonia concentration, affects the workings of the gills? pH, temperature, salinity...



Thanks for this.

Passive NH3 diffusion seemed (to me) the most common mechanims (or perhaps most studied...). Turns out, this is outdated info (science progresses pretty fast).

That said, I continue to read statements as the following:

"The build-up of high environmental ammonia (HEA) can become a serious threat for aquatic animals, including fish, and affects the performance of fish in several ways. Various reports suggest that at HEA, ammonia excretion through the fish gills is hindered and/or there is a net uptake of ammonia from the environment (see Ip and Chew, 2010; Wright and Wood, 2009 for reviews). This leads to a situation where fish are confronted simultaneously with accumulation of endogenous ammonia production and uptake of exogenous ammonia. Consequently, ammonia levels in the blood and tissue increases which induce a range of ecotoxicological effects."

Physiological insights into largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) survival during long-term exposure to high environmental ammonia

In which case the clickbait "cycling is useless" could be true, provided pH stays below ~pH8 (and we solely focus on ammonia). If the NH3 concentration in water exceeds the concentration at the branchial epithelium (gills), the above happens.

In this particular study:

Lethal (this is a common procedure in toxicology: where they raise a certain concentration until 50% dies within 96 hrs.... yes, science....):
33 ppm ammonia (that is a little more than "our" 2 ppm) = 1.15 NH3 (25C / pH 7.8)

(there seems to be huge differences between fish species)

(pH 7.8 relates to the KH - CO2 - pH equilibrium at (current) atmospheric pressure; in other words, the average pH of water in a tank if you take out all life)

Stress: 8.31 ppm ammonia:

Ammonia excretion rate was severely inhibited following 7 days of exposure.

To be continued...

Will dive into those other excretion mechanisms, cherryshrimp pointed out, with CO2 (pH) as mediating factor.

Ahhh.. I think the general discussion is getting beyond what my tired brain can sort just now, but I can answer the external ammonia burn question directed to me. Not as scientifically couched as the scientists here might, but here goes.

Get in a fish with reddened gills, reddened or damaged fins, sometimes loosened or missing scales with redness, usually gasping. The tank water is reported or observed as 20+ ammonia. Transfer fish into clean water. Breathing evens out, some gill redness recedes. Body & fin wounds remain, sometimes heal in clean water, sometimes heal with treatment beyond clean water. More often, wound erosion has gone too far although even breathing resumes & the fish dies. Sometimes the respiratory symptoms are mild but the fin/body burns are not.

I used to hand animals over to the vet college for necropsy & usually was told, yup, this was ammonia - burns & or poisoning. If it wasn't, I made a point of learning about the actual COD, potential treatments & differentials. Rarely, like with expensive koi or goldies, I wiggle in a vid call with our vet (reptile & marine) who says, yup, ammonia burns, ammonia poisoning, keep up the clean water & here's a scrip for the bacteria infected burns. Sometimes they survive - scarred & fragile - but alive. The amount of ammonia burns in surrenders is flat out obscene.

I think of it this way. When I teach household safety, ammonia for cleaning often comes up. Ammonia fumes will damage human lung tissue - we're not processing it thru gills. So I'd advise proper masking & ventilation if using it. The thing is tho, that even with proper respiratory protection, if ammonia is spilled on skin, there's likely gonna be a burn.

That's my interest right there. We think of scales & slime as some kind of armour but they're not armour against chemical burns. The animal is gill separating & processing ammonia "safely" - they're masked & ventilated - but their bodies & fins can still get hit hard by ammonia burns. And they do get burned. Also makes me interested in the energy required to safely gill process ammonia & what effect that expenditure has on overall animal health.

Just my perspective from hands-on care.

 

Ok…..I’m going to try to illustrate this ammonia thing using the “KISS” approach. No single illustration will be perfect or complete as PH, KH, CO2, Temperature, and Carbonic Acid also play an integral part. I will endeavor to show the PH “KISS” approach/relationship to this in the future as time is a factor in doing these.

Now….the simple focus will be on merely TAN (Total Ammonia…NH3 and NH4).

Be advised, that NH3 is the Bad/worse form of the two forms of Ammonia as high NH3 levels can both enter the fish and also prevent the fish from removing it. NH4 is not ideal, but NH4 can’t go from the water to inside the fish.

One can call Ammonia management “Cycling” or anything else for that matter, but levels of NH3 (Free Ammonia) being high or low DOES effect the well being of fish. If the fish can’t remove NH3 from the body via the gills or if concentrations of NH3 are higher in the surrounding water and NH3 enters the fish body, toxicity will increase eventually becoming fatal. If the NH3 levels are low or negligible in the water, the fish will be able to remove (excrete) NH3, no NH3 will enter into the fish body, and all is well.

One more thing…….by the hobbyist providing water w bacteria (however it’s done w bb ‘seeding’, with fish, or fishless ‘Cycling’) which is able to reduce TAN (especially NH3), the toxicity of Ammonia should ideally never happen. I’m not here to mince words centering around Cycled tanks. I’ll instead go with properly managed Total Ammonia Level Awareness Management (TALAM). If one has the means to provide water (however it’s done) that has a lower concentration of Ammonia, it’s a no-brainer….….do it.

The first image is of “The GOOD” where lower water concentrations of NH3 allow NH3 to easily leave the fish and no NH3 can enter the fish from the water. Since bb can help maintain/foster this, then one would (imho) be best advised to provide water rich in bb.



The second image is of “The Bad” where higher levels of NH3 do two Bad things. First, the NH3 concentration in the water being higher prevents the fish from getting rid of NH3. Second, the higher concentration of NH3 in the water can actually enter into the fish as well causing toxicity to increase.


Do note…..this is my attempt to encourage good water conditions by showing the evils of NH3, to try to apply the KISS approach to a very complicated system of water management, and that one can assist (by whatever means) the lessening of NH3 via bb. Before you get on me, yes, I know that pH has to be addressed too as both my images are “pH dependent“.

So, for now…..it’s all abt Ammonia into and out of the fish and the fish tank water.

I’m hoping that by starting w plain simple Ammonia talk, the pH thing might be easier to understand later on, especially for the non-science oriented hobbyists/people among us. If a moderator finds my posting to be full of errors, in the wrong spot, or not worthy of the topic, plz feel free to delete it or move it as needed.

 

Ok…..I’m going to try to illustrate this ammonia thing using the “KISS” approach. No single illustration will be perfect or complete as PH, KH, CO2, Temperature, and Carbonic Acid also play an integral part. I will endeavor to show the PH “KISS” approach/relationship to this in the future as time is a factor in doing these.

Now….the simple focus will be on merely TAN (Total Ammonia…NH3 and NH4).

Be advised, that NH3 is the Bad/worse form of the two forms of Ammonia as high NH3 levels can both enter the fish and also prevent the fish from removing it. NH4 is not ideal, but NH4 can’t go from the water to inside the fish.

One can call Ammonia management “Cycling” or anything else for that matter, but levels of NH3 (Free Ammonia) being high or low DOES effect the well being of fish. If the fish can’t remove NH3 from the body via the gills or if concentrations of NH3 are higher in the surrounding water and NH3 enters the fish body, toxicity will increase eventually becoming fatal. If the NH3 levels are low or negligible in the water, the fish will be able to remove (excrete) NH3, no NH3 will enter into the fish body, and all is well.

One more thing…….by the hobbyist providing water w bacteria (however it’s done w bb ‘seeding’, with fish, or fishless ‘Cycling’) which is able to reduce TAN (especially NH3), the toxicity of Ammonia should ideally never happen. I’m not here to mince words centering around Cycled tanks. I’ll instead go with properly managed Total Ammonia Level Awareness Management (TALAM). If one has the means to provide water (however it’s done) that has a lower concentration of Ammonia, it’s a no-brainer….….do it.

The first image is of “The GOOD” where lower water concentrations of NH3 allow NH3 to easily leave the fish and no NH3 can enter the fish from the water. Since bb can help maintain/foster this, then one would (imho) be best advised to provide water rich in bb.
View attachment 870750

The second image is of “The Bad” where higher levels of NH3 do two Bad things. First, the NH3 concentration in the water being higher prevents the fish from getting rid of NH3. Second, the higher concentration of NH3 in the water can actually enter into the fish as well causing toxicity to increase.
View attachment 870754
Do note…..this is my attempt to encourage good water conditions by showing the evils of NH3, to try to apply the KISS approach to a very complicated system of water management, and that one can assist (by whatever means) the lessening of NH3 via bb. Before you get on me, yes, I know that pH has to be addressed too as both my images are “pH dependent“.

So, for now…..it’s all abt Ammonia into and out of the fish and the fish tank water.

I’m hoping that by starting w plain simple Ammonia talk, the pH thing might be easier to understand later on, especially for the non-science oriented hobbyists/people among us. If a moderator finds my posting to be full of errors, in the wrong spot, or not worthy of the topic, plz feel free to delete it or move it as needed.

Wish you'd been one of my bio profs.

 

Any input is appreciated!

So what you've described is passive NH3 diffusion, which seems to be slightly modified by recent research, but the implications, as described by the study I shared this morning (Europe) and very clearly drawn in your images, seems to be similar. NH3 diffusion is inhibited or the flux is reversed if the NH3 concentration in the environment is too high.

1.
That said, It is one of 5 mechanisms described by science. Three of which seem to have most support. One of the others was pointed out by cherryshrimp (the 2nd post in this thread): NH3 diffusion trapping. The third is Na+/NH4+ exchange.

2.
Apart from these excretion mechanisms, there's a number of mechanisms that fish species have developed when faced with high environmental ammonia conditions.

I have the feeling the other mechanisms are part of these coping measures, whereas passive NH3 diffusion is the default modus operandi.

Other mechanisms:
- conversion of ammonia into urea
- conversion of ammonia into amino acids
- amino acid catabolism suppression

I also suspect there are a lot of differences to be found between species.

For example, conversion into urea and a fourth excretion mechanisms (NH4 diffusion) is only present in species hailing from high pH environments.

 

Ruud, your points are indeed factors in addition to KH, pH, CO2, Carbonic Acid, and temperature. I enjoy reading abt all that enzymatic, urea, amino acid stuff and they are, as I said, part of a very complicated system. I do believe, after having sadly seen fish in respiratory distress a few times, that a fish dying so quickly is centered around the gill function.…..thus my focus of my prior post.

My goals are not to disagree with you as you are right. Instead, I’m going w the task of making the basics of all this possible to understand and deal with for the average non-science person who has to deal with this issue at some level to be successful in keeping fish.

 

What ammonia does to fish:

Toxic Effects on Bioaccumulation, Hematological Parameters, Oxidative Stress, Immune Responses and Tissue Structure in Fish Exposed to Ammonia Nitrogen: A Review

Reduces the oxygen levels in blood directly since ammonia has an affinity for oxygen. I see fish start to suffocate first. I am very sensitive to this behavior.

Cause something like hepatic encephalopathy. Unfortunately I have seen this in people. And I recall thinking that fish appear to behave similarly when poisoned by ammonia. Ughhhh.

This is dark. We all know that ammonia kills fish in horrible ways right!!

The ammonia is also absorbed directly into the fish through their skin and digestive system it says. So it does not have to involve the gills. Ammonia can go directly into the fish and displace oxygen. It can be absorbed by the fish itself.

 

Exactly. Besides, most fish would die of STRESS in high pH and not just ammonia. Most cichlids wouldn't even like a pH of 9!

Not to mention the anaerobic, nitrate-eating bacteria.

But yes, of course, ammonium is hardly toxic. In high amounts maybe. I mean, water in extremely high amounts is toxic to people as it builds up in your brain. Your skull only has so much space to expand. "Everything in moderation" as the saying goes.

Anyway, I think this thread is great. But NOT for beginners. It's better for beginners to believe all tests that show above a certain amount is toxic. It helps them take care of their tanks.

 

Exactly. Besides, most fish would die of STRESS in high pH and not just ammonia. Most cichlids wouldn't even like a pH of 9!

Not to mention the anaerobic, nitrate-eating bacteria.

But yes, of course, ammonium is hardly toxic. In high amounts maybe. I mean, water in extremely high amounts is toxic to people as it builds up in your brain. Your skull only has so much space to expand. "Everything in moderation" as the saying goes.

Anyway, I think this thread is great. But NOT for beginners. It's better for beginners to believe all tests that show above a certain amount is toxic. It helps them take care of their tanks.

I agree but as a not quite a beginner anymore I really and truly feel like Ph, GH, KH and oxygen should always be included in the discussion. I can assure you it's not. I think there'd be more success and easier to understand it all if right out if the gate we're learning to take it all into account and what to look for. Speaking from my experience only, of course. And I certainly appreciate you all very much.

 

Its important to know and understand the nitrogen cycle, but once your a experienced fishkeeper you can work around it. The very first lesson i learned was that fish in an all new tank will die until good bacteria grows. That being sad, gravel is a terrible substrate and using sand, dirt, or bare bottom is alot better and you can just kind of half way cycle and use plants, dont overcrowd and you should have more sucess. High nitrites can make fish unhappy and unhealthy that is just a fact.

 

Ruud, your points are indeed factors in addition to KH, pH, CO2, Carbonic Acid, and temperature. I enjoy reading abt all that enzymatic, urea, amino acid stuff and they are, as I said, part of a very complicated system. I do believe, after having sadly seen fish in respiratory distress a few times, that a fish dying so quickly is centered around the gill function.…..thus my focus of my prior post.

My goals are not to disagree with you as you are right. Instead, I’m going w the task of making the basics of all this possible to understand and deal with for the average non-science person who has to deal with this issue at some level to be successful in keeping fish.

Just confirming we're on the same page.

What ammonia does to fish:

Toxic Effects on Bioaccumulation, Hematological Parameters, Oxidative Stress, Immune Responses and Tissue Structure in Fish Exposed to Ammonia Nitrogen: A Review

Reduces the oxygen levels in blood directly since ammonia has an affinity for oxygen. I see fish start to suffocate first. I am very sensitive to this behavior.

Cause something like hepatic encephalopathy. Unfortunately I have seen this in people. And I recall thinking that fish appear to behave similarly when poisoned by ammonia. Ughhhh.

This is dark. We all know that ammonia kills fish in horrible ways right!!

The ammonia is also absorbed directly into the fish through their skin and digestive system it says. So it does not have to involve the gills. Ammonia can go directly into the fish and displace oxygen. It can be absorbed by the fish itself.

Definitely going to read this. Thanks.

Not done with this thread at all. Just busy with life.

 

There is another thread recently where the OP put 6 neons into a new 75 gallon tank with plants. No cycle ever happened. Everybody's happy!

Into Week 3 of cycling 75G | Aquarium Nitrogen Cycle Forum

All of the cycling stuff happens because we put fish into a toilet.

 

Sincere props for the moderators for tolerating this thread. It is fine if people approach the hobby in different ways, I'm just trying to understand something that I didn't even bother about well over a year ago.

There is another thread recently where the OP put 6 neons into a new 75 gallon tank with plants. No cycle ever happened. Everybody's happy!

Into Week 3 of cycling 75G | Aquarium Nitrogen Cycle Forum

All of the cycling stuff happens because we put fish into a toilet.

Using this conversion table:

• Protein of feed 25% (might be different, just a ballpark)
• N in protein: 16% (this is a fixed number)
• 70% is excreted by fish as ammonia (this is an accurate average)
• Ratio NH3 to N is 1.216 (this is a fixed number)

1 neon weighs about 1 gram and requires 2% of its body weight in feed per day.

So multiply: 6*0.02 = 0.12 grams
Then multiply using the conversion table: 0.12 grams * 0,25 protein * .16 N * .70 excretion * 1.216 NH3-N ratio = 0.004 NH3 excreted per day.

Next, the neons swim in 75 gallon / 284 liter tank. So 0.004 grams to ppm (mg/l) = 4 mg / 285 liters = 0.014 mg/l or ppm ammonia.

NH3 is excreted but a large part will convert to NH4+.

At pH 7 and 77 F, 0.56% of this amount is present as NH3.

So the 6 neons are swimming daily in 0.000079 ppm NH3.

Actually it is much less, as the excretion doesn't take place at the same time and doesn't remain in water for the rest of the day.

So let's divide the 0.000079 ppm NH3 by.... no, I'm kidding. I've got better things to do.... I think.

 

Sincere props for the moderators for tolerating this thread. It is fine if people approach the hobby in different ways, I'm just trying to understand something that I didn't even bother about well over a year ago.

Debate and exchange of ideas is encouraged, as long as it stays calm, civil & respectful of others opinions even if they’re not agreed with then all is good

 

So the 6 neons are swimming daily in 0.000079 ppm NH3.

But what if the fishkeeper over feeds and puts more fish food than the fish eat, and this food releases ammonia? This is probably what really happens most of the time.

We put in tiny amounts of food, and don't see their fish eating it. So we keep putting in more. We have a need to feed.

 

We have a need to feed.

This, dying plant matter, dying organic matter from roots.
As stated, this can be often prevented though. Lots of plants, some water changes, only feed as much as necessary, let the system do its thing.

A few years ago when I tried to ... let's call it broaden my horizon and peaked into the international forums, for the first time I read about dosing ammonia to cycle a tank.

My first thought was "Are they preparing their tank for nuclear war?"

Don't get me wrong, the method makes perfectly sense to get the nitrogen cycle up and running, which is imo a good thing. I found it surprising how much "science" is done elsewhere, while here it was more like "Set up, wait 6 weeks, done". But one shouldn't forget that there's a lot more things going on than just nitrosoma and nitrobacter.

There's a reason that algae, surface scum and other things come and go in the first few months while after some time, the tank becomes rock stable. And that's certainly not only the nitrogen cycle.

Recipe for disaster:

• Fresh tank
• 3 plants that throw all leaves after 5 days since they're changing to submersed state
• A lot of fish at the same time
• Some botanicals as in leaves because you read somewhere that that's nice
• Feed the poor fishies three times a day triple the needed amount because they looks so hungry and sad

Welcome to ammonia wonderland.

 

"don't overfeed the fishes and aerate the water well"

This was the advice my grandfather used to give me around 40 years ago (before suppliers took over the hobby with advice that served their business).

Feces contain lots of C and N, left-over feed basically the same (fat contains the C). So this is were our N friends and C friends come into play. But most ammonia (N) is excreted via the gills.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So how much ammonia is dosed for cycling? 4 ppm?

Lets turn this around.

Assuming a 100 liter tank / 26 gallon tank.

That's 0.4 grams ammonia. That's 11.7 grams of feed for 587 grams of fish. Just calculating the reverse direction of what I wrote earlier.

That's 587 neon tetra's in a 26 gallon tank.

According to aqadvisor, I'm overstocked.

I agree.

 

Recipe for disaster:

• Fresh tank
• 3 plants that throw all leaves after 5 days since they're changing to submersed state
• A lot of fish at the same time
• Some botanicals as in leaves because you read somewhere that that's nice
• Feed the poor fishies three times a day triple the needed amount because they looks so hungry and sad

Welcome to ammonia wonderland.

Now this should be the warning sign at every pet smart,co,wharehouse…….. with one other thing
Don’t beleive the salesperson!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So how much ammonia is dosed for cycling? 4 ppm?

Lets turn this around.

Assuming a 100 liter tank / 26 gallon tank.

That's 0.4 grams ammonia. That's 11.7 grams of feed for 587 grams of fish. Just calculating the reverse direction of what I wrote earlier.

That's 587 neon tetra's in a 26 gallon tank.

According to aqadvisor, I'm overstocked.

I agree.

This is perfect! And why I continue reading these posts. This is science and math proving the fishless cycle is bunk . One other thing that you guys could prove is does pure ammonia actually creat a bacteria that will eat fish ammonia!
Seems to me the fishless cycle is pushed by people who think they are saving fish and that the fish in cycle kills fish. Problem it’s neither of these cycles that kill fish.it’s the people doing them . Now my problem is that since the fishless cycle takes more time and is really a science project. So many more fail at it. Not long time keepers who do it all the time (which I don’t get either) but the people who are just starting. See the people who failed at the fish in cycle they just filled their tanks and eventually forgot to keep up the tank. These people realized with the dead fish that hey fish keeping isn’t for me. They all got cats instead. The cat reminds them they have a cat . Now the fishless people now they forget about the tank but think it’s a time thing and add fish anyway. The fish all die and they start over. Cause it’s a science project It’s usually 2 or 3 times before they quit and get cats or they join a site to ask us why it’s not working .

 

The cat reminds them they have a cat .

 

This is perfect! And why I continue reading these posts. This is science and math proving the fishless cycle is bunk . One other thing that you guys could prove is does pure ammonia actually creat a bacteria that will eat fish ammonia!

I disagree that fishless cycling is bunk. It works when its done properly. Ammonia is ammonia. Doesn't matter where it came from. And it needs to be taken care of one way or another. But I do agree that there is far more to a "seasoned" tank than just processing ammonia, and real fish are a big part of that.

I've always thought that most people were dosing far more ammonia than they needed to be. I only dose to 1ppm. And I typically only dose 2 or 3 times in total. I've done this a number of times, typically in combination with plants, and seasoned media. It works for me. But I see some people dosing a crazy amount of ammonia into their tanks on a routine basis for weeks. And I just don't believe that's useful or helpful.

I've gradually come to believe that recommending a fishless cycle to beginners might actually be counterproductive. I do think that you need to know what you are doing with fishless cycling, and most people just don't. Its far simpler to teach a new person how to do a fish-in cycle than a fishless cycle, and that simplicity matters a whole lot.

At this point, I think the hobby needs to stop pushing fishless cycling to beginners as a standard practice. Or at the very least, we need to stop shaming people for not going that route. I think we need to accept that fishless cycling might be a method best left to more experienced hobbyists. Or to people in specific situations where a fish-in cycle may not be a great option.

I do think that fishless cycling is a valid method, and it has its place in the hobby. I keep a bottle of ammonia in my supply cabinet, and I use it when I find it appropriate. It works for me. But IMHO, its not the method we should be starting new people on.

 

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone shame anyone else for fish in cycling here. I think fishless cycling as a recommendation to beginners is productive for two reasons , 1 being that it saves fish and 2 it gives people time to fully understand the nitrogen cycle and be able to understand testing and what the results actually mean.

once you have one tank you don’t really need to ever fully cycle fishless again in my opinion ( unless shrimp )

This is the thing about the hobby , there’s so many , many approaches. Different fish require different needs, for example a Malawi cichlid to a wild caught discus. They’ve two complete different needs , and putting a wild caught discus in a brand new tank likely wouldn’t end well.

I do enjoy reading peoples perspectives the very sciencey parts may take me a few reads though.

 

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone shame anyone else for fish in cycling here. I think fishless cycling as a recommendation to beginners is productive for two reasons , 1 being that it saves fish and 2 it gives people time to fully understand the nitrogen cycle and be able to understand testing and what the results actually mean.

once you have one tank you don’t really need to ever fully cycle fishless again in my opinion ( unless shrimp )

This is the thing about the hobby , there’s so many , many approaches. Different fish require different needs, for example a Malawi cichlid to a wild caught discus. They’ve two complete different needs , and putting a wild caught discus in a brand new tank likely wouldn’t end well.

I do enjoy reading peoples perspectives the very sciencey parts may take me a few reads though.

Maybe not shamed, but I've seen people say that fish-in cycling is inhumane.

 

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone shame anyone else for fish in cycling here. I think fishless cycling as a recommendation to beginners is productive for two reasons , 1 being that it saves fish and 2 it gives people time to fully understand the nitrogen cycle and be able to understand testing and what the results actually mean.

once you have one tank you don’t really need to ever fully cycle fishless again in my opinion ( unless shrimp )

This is the thing about the hobby , there’s so many , many approaches. Different fish require different needs, for example a Malawi cichlid to a wild caught discus. They’ve two complete different needs , and putting a wild caught discus in a brand new tank likely wouldn’t end well.

I do enjoy reading peoples perspectives the very sciencey parts may take me a few reads though.

This forum is pretty tolerant. But its only one place among many where this topic is discussed.

I like fishless cycling. I got started in this hobby doing a fishless cycle. And I still use ammonia to help prepare new tanks for fish. But I have a science background, with a lot of technical training. I'm a design engineer and I also spent a couple years as a chemistry major. I was very well suited for learning how to do a fishless cycle even though I was new to fishkeeping. Not everyone is.

I design things for other people to build and use. Something important I have learned in my job is that it doesn't matter how good something works if you can't easily teach other people how to use it. A design that is too complicated for others to use is not a good design. And just because I can learn something easily, doesn't mean other people can.

Fishless cycling isn't rocket science. But it is a rather technical approach to the problem, and it can be tricky. Not everyone is going to have their best success with a technical approach. Some people are more hands-on, more practical, more intuitive.

Different people are good at different things, and learn in different ways. Learning how the nitrogen cycle works by doing an 8 week science experiment in your living room is not a productive use of time for a lot of people, probably most people. I believe a lot of people would learn what they need to learn much faster, and have a much nicer introduction to the hobby by going with fish-in cycling. Not everyone, but quite a few. And I think we are doing these people a disservice by steering them towards a method that they aren't suited for.

I'm not convinced that fishless cycling actually saves fish when compared to fish-in cycling. Its when people aren't paying attention to cycling at all that fish start dying.

 

Maybe not shamed, but I've seen people say that fish-in cycling is inhumane.

Hmmm.. there’s many ways to the end goal and I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, I’m just saying I’ve not personally seen it.

I'm not convinced that fishless cycling actually saves fish when compared to fish-in cycling. It’s when people aren't paying attention to cycling at all that fish start dying.

This could be said for any method , I think any research is key. If you’re oblivious I doubt fish in or fishless would matter I’m not saying I advocate either approach , as it’s relative to each person and their knowledge. Any way I’ve digressed a bit from the original thread , I’d like to be able to comment on the science part but again , not my strong suit I find this thread great reading though. Very interesting.

 

I disagree that fishless cycling is bunk. It works when its done properly. Ammonia is ammonia. Doesn't matter where it came from. And it needs to be taken care of one way or another. But I do agree that there is far more to a "seasoned" tank than just processing ammonia, and real fish are a big part of that.

I've always thought that most people were dosing far more ammonia than they needed to be. I only dose to 1ppm. And I typically only dose 2 or 3 times in total. I've done this a number of times, typically in combination with plants, and seasoned media. It works for me. But I see some people dosing a crazy amount of ammonia into their tanks on a routine basis for weeks. And I just don't believe that's useful or helpful.

I've gradually come to believe that recommending a fishless cycle to beginners might actually be counterproductive. I do think that you need to know what you are doing with fishless cycling, and most people just don't. Its far simpler to teach a new person how to do a fish-in cycle than a fishless cycle, and that simplicity matters a whole lot.

At this point, I think the hobby needs to stop pushing fishless cycling to beginners as a standard practice. Or at the very least, we need to stop shaming people for not going that route. I think we need to accept that fishless cycling might be a method best left to more experienced hobbyists. Or to people in specific situations where a fish-in cycle may not be a great option.

I do think that fishless cycling is a valid method, and it has its place in the hobby. I keep a bottle of ammonia in my supply cabinet, and I use it when I find it appropriate. It works for me. But IMHO, its not the method we should be starting new people on.

Very well written Maritime Aquaman. Your points regarding new people in the hobby starting with “Fish In Cycling” is ideal provided they also use seeded media. While “Fishless Cycling” does work as ammonia is ammonia, I suspect many newcomers get it wrong and both get frustrated and may even do harm to fish n the process. Simplicity has merit as starting people out with a simple less complex approach will ease them into understanding the facets of the N Cycle. Then they could slowly learn more abt the N Cycle and avoid getting overwhelmed.
If all new tanks were started with a seeded appropriate sized hob and a seeded sponge filter and fish were introduced gradually, many of the “new tank syndrome”/fish die offs would disappear. New people to fishkeeping would be able to comprehend the need for bb and avoiding ammonia build up by starting this way. Wouldn’t it be nice if pet shops had set ups where they sold or even rented seeded media in various sizes to fit various hobs according to tank size and/or did the same with sponge filters? People could set the tank up, go to the pet shop and get media, and then days later, return to the pet shop to buy 2-3 fish with the understanding that the fish part HAS to be done over a longer period of time. I’m a retired biology teacher and have done fish for over five decades and I still use the seeded approach with great success. I understand the fishless cycle concept and could do it for sure, but if what I’ve done so many times wo issue has worked for me, I’m inclined to continue. Done right, this method (fish in w seeding), imho, is not inhumane.
Your concerns regarding shaming also matter. This shaming occasionally pops up in WC issues, fish tank populations, QT issues, real or fake plants etc. People have the right to share opinions etc wo being slammed. I’m happy to say that this Forum is among the most civil/respectful/non-belligerent Forums I belong to.

 

I think over time most of us inevitably end up with seeded media just from leftover equipment, decor, etc. Even my water change bucket is covered in biofilm. That makes it easier and easier to setup new tanks and probably why people find more success over time.

Also the importance of pH which has been mentioned before. Very hard to fish-in cycle in my hard alkaline waters without mortality. I have to keep stocking low and feed very little. If I cycle with normal feeding amounts, certain fish and cherry shrimp have zero chance of surviving.

For brand new hobbyists, theyre kind of starting from scratch with sterile equipment. If they don't have seeded media, not sure where they can get a jump start of nitrifiers other than the trace numbers found in tap water. I've seen others recommend a handful of outside dirt, perhaps that's the real miracle product instead of bottled bacteria...

 

Hey,

this whole discussion seems to focus on 2 things:

Fishless cycle a.k.a. dripping ammonia
Fish-in cycle a.k.a. light stock for the beginning.

This is exactly what I meant with the nuclear war comparison. It has been described here as too complicated for beginners. Yes, if you do THAT fishless cycle.

There are also other variations for fishless cycles that for some reason seem kind of unknown? To name a few that are common here:

• Set everything up and let the tank do its thing for 6 weeks (the most common)
• Set everything up, add a bit of fish food every 2 days, do that for 4-6 weeks (close to the dripping-ammonia-fishless cycle)
• Add starter bacteria and add food every 2 days
• Use earth from your garden to kickstart your tank (very effective by the way, short summary is to stir unfertilized, non-contaminated earth into a glass of water, wait until it settles and then add 15ml of that water per 50l of water)

All have in common that nitrites are tested regularly. At some point nitrites rise, then fall again to zero. As soon as that happens, the tank is considered ready here. And as for how complicated it is: There is literally nothing easier than "sit and wait".

In my opinion a fishless cycle is far from complicated. It has been overcomplicated by the need for "perfection". Even if you go "low" with 1ppm for cycling, take Ruud's calculation. That's still enough bang for 146.75 tetras (that poor 3/4 tetra ) in a 26g! And I'm very sure if you up that to exactly 147 tetras, they won't be poisoned either.

Some people overdo it...I've read articles that stated "Add exactly 3ppm ammonia and make sure to be as exact as possible!".

Why? Won't it work otherwise? Will all fish in a 20 miles radius die if I don't? Will I unintentionally create a biochemical weapon of mass destruction if I only add 2.9ppm? Questions upon questions...

The cycle of a tank should be taken very serious. It's just that some people take the wrong aspects of it very (too) serious.

 

Where did the other 1/4 tetra go ? Fin rot maybe ??

 

In many instances newbies don’t even have the opportunity to become aware of the nitrogen cycle before tragedy strikes so our ruminations on the complexities of fish-in or fishless and what to recommend to them is a moot point. That’s not going to change until LFS staff are educated and stop sending home customers after their first visit with all equipment, fish and a bottle of bacteria. By the time they post on Fishlore they already have dead and dying fish and it’s a race against the clock to educate them and help them save their remaining stock.

 

Where did the other 1/4 tetra go ? Fin rot maybe ??

Would that have something to do with the ammonia .

 

Would that have something to do with the ammonia .

Depends if they did a fishless cycle….