Best Fish to Cycle With
- Nano Build
- Thread starter mfrumkin
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Here is a nice article comparing 'bacteria in a bottle': https://fritzaquatics.com/resources/articles/comparing-live-bacteria-products
Here are the instructions for Fritz:
Directions & Dosage
Chlorine and chloramines are lethal to FritzZyme® TurboStart® bacteria and must be completely removed before addition.
Turn off UV sterilizers and protein skimmers before use and for 5 days after each introduction of FritzZyme® TurboStart® 900.
Shake bottle, add 1 oz. (29 ml) TurboStart® per 25 gallons (95 L) of water.
Add animals after acclimating. Do not overcrowd tank. Do not overfeed.
Test water parameters regularly.
To decrease cycling time, FritzZyme® TurboStart® 900 can be safely used up to 5x recommended dosage.
NOTE: Systems may be slightly cloudy or have an earthy odor for several hours after treatment.
Live product. Keep refrigerated. Do not freeze. Refrigerated life is 6 months. Use before expiration date on bottom of bottle.
Nitrifying bacteria must be present in sufficient numbers in your biofilter to handle the ammonia generated by a full load of fish; otherwise, the ammonia can rise to lethal levels. Naturally, this requires 3-4 weeks for freshwater and 4-8 weeks for saltwater. FritzZyme® TurboStart will dramatically shorten this delay from weeks to several days.
Recommended initial livestock loadings are dependent on several factors:
- The amount of rock in your tank
- Species of livestock
- Sump area
- Filter size and type
- Etc.
If initially adding a large livestock load, it is recommended to feed minimally for the first week, allowing the nitrifiers to establish themselves.
Here are the ingredients:
FritzZyme® 7 (freshwater) and 9 (brackish and marine) contain pure cultures of live Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria.
I guess I'm curious - did you read it? I did read it - and it was quite informative - In fact it and a couple other posts concerning the amount of ammonia produced by various clownfish suggests that its QUITE unlikely to ever get a toxic ammonia level - especially when adding nitrifiers (like those contained in Fritzzyme 900) - or when using some other source of nitrifiers (live rock, sand from another tank, etc).
Lasse
10K Club member
Ultimate Member
Reef Squad
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
R2R App User
Article Contributor
My Tank Thread
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 12,835
- Reaction score
- 31,639
- Location
- Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
Yes - I took it with just to show how low concentrations we are talking about.
Sincerely Lasse
Does calculating the N contribution potential from the protein content of the food account for all of the N contributed to the water column by biological processes to include respiration, decomposition, and etc.. I ask not to argue with you method. I really just don't know the answer.
I looked this up for my calculation on the clownfish as well. Part of the N (and other things in the food) goes into the fish. Some is 'in the poop'. Theorhetically - more no should be going in (i.e. building protein) than coming out) - Even without food though - I believe some 'N' is excreted. @Lasse?
Lasse
10K Club member
Ultimate Member
Reef Squad
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
R2R App User
Article Contributor
My Tank Thread
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 12,835
- Reaction score
- 31,639
- Location
- Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
It is a fair question.
We are now talking about a complete new aquaria without any prior organic load. The only input is the fish and the CUC. These are the only two sources for NH3/NH4 the first week(s). If we not feed anything - we would have some N out from the fish (and CUC) after a while because when the stored fat (in the fish and the CUC) will be used for the basic metabolism and when fat reserves are empty - the fish start to use stored proteins instead - and some N will come out in the water as NH3/NH4 . But this will normally happens after some weeks if the fish is in good condition - it will use the fat first. However - of the external food you give around 20 % will be stored in the fish as new biomass - 80 % will be out as waste. For the NH3/NH4 part - it is mainly through the gills the first 3 - 4 hours after the fish have eaten - very little N will leave as organic N in the poop. Of this NH3/NH4 som will go to the nitrification cycle. some will be areated out as NH3 (if you have a good skimmer) and some will be bound in growing algae (if the light is on) Algae will be eaten by the CUC and the N will be recirculated but the source for this N is the food you give to the fish - at least the first weeks when no dead organic load have build up. With the food regime - you manage the NH3/NH4 load completly the first weeks.
Sincerely Lasse
Last edited:
Thanks. Biology sucks. Give me physics any day... 2 + 2 always equals 2!
Tony Thompson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 1,126
- Location
- North East England
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
Sorry but I am still confused.
With respect to the original post, which I understood as basically asking what type of hardy fish other than a damsel can be used for cycling a tank. Although I am not going to quote the exact question, I am of the understanding that this was the crux of the question.
Reading through the thread I was relieved that the vast majority of the answers and comments did not just include a list animals that unfortunately are sometimes classified both hardy and expendable, the usual suspects belonging to the Family Pomacentridae, including Clowns and Damsels.
Thankfully the majority of the comments where inclined to discuss the Nitrogen Cycle itself and the many, many methods of developing an effective biological filter to convert toxic ammonia to less harmful compounds / elements. Also the effects and levels of these elements on the animals involved.
I read through many, including as always very informative thread @Lasse , but unfortunately not everyone's comments, so I apologize for any that I missed.
I am not trying to disprove or relegate any of the other methods that have been discussed. All I am saying is it is prudent to use a simple and effective precaution before adding the actual livestock.
One can study the data and read as many articles as one wishes, but with regards nature one must always be aware of its sometimes unpredictable path, it will often throw a side ball. That is why I believe the simple precaution of loading, stressing and testing without a live sample is prudent especially with regards the animals welfare.
Creating a diverse biological environment is in my opinion another topic altogether and could become rather distracting especially for newcomers to the hobby when discussing basic biological filtration (CYCLING A TANK)
I still can not see why so many people are reluctant to practice the simple procedure of using a measured ammonia source and test to validate the correct operation of a basic biological filter to convert a given ammonia load to less toxic forms of nitrogen, before the addition of livestock. Test ammonia level, add measured ammonia source, test ammonia source depletion time. If there is no evidence of an active biological filtration then add one in the form of Nitrifying Bacteria, (preferably and most commonly some form of sufficient surface area and a bacteria source would have been made available prior to testing the filter) ,once again readily available from the many manufacturers following the findings and patents of Dr. Hovanec. You can then follow any path you wish once this is proven. Even the most elaborate of methods include the addition of an ammonia source, be it fish or decaying organics. Surely using a form of ammonia that can be simply calculated and therefore more accurately compared just makes common sense. This can be tested in as little as 24 hours without any risk to livestock.
For those who have neither the inclination or time to read the remainder of my comments, then I don't blame you :) the above summary concludes my comments. Happy Reefing and Best Wishes from the UK to our fellow hobbyists where ever you abode.
Continued......
The main reason I love to participate with this forum is to keep up with my fellow reefers trials and tribulations, but to be honest my favorite part is to look at the photos of these amazing animals and aquariums. However I also appreciate the excellent articles by both qualified and experienced hobbyists.
My main interest over the past 30 -40 years has always been in respect to Aquatic Biology. As a consequence of my professional duties, as far as aquarium keeping is concerned. I have had large breaks in the hobby . So each time I start up again, I start a fresh as a novice just to keep up with modern methods and not be drawn into the comfort of "It works so why change it". I have seen huge strides since the Berlin and Dr Jaubert methods.
Although I have no academic qualification in this field. I do prefer to access most of my scientific information from my Logon to Researchgate and the many excellent professional journals.
As was pointed out to me by another member. I am very much aware of Peer Review and the importance of reference and citation. unfortunately many articles are not subject to peer review so must be taken in context. Also the vast majority of those that are peer reviewed are unfortunately not directed at the aquarium hobby or the keeping of ornamental species so I believe context is particularly important as is reading the whole article not just the abstract or conclusion.
As a professional with licences to import, aquaculture, and sell Marine Ornamentals in the United Kingdom, it is a stipulation of those licences to first certify an active biological filter before adding livestock and to maintain SOP's to ensure its operation is successfully maintained at all times. If I did not adhere to these stipulations, I would be in breach of at least one of those licences. In my profession it is not just classed as bad practice, to use livestock to routinely cycle an aquarium, it is a legal duty not to do so.
If you read all the way to this point, I am impressed, thank you for your patience.:)
With respect to the original post, which I understood as basically asking what type of hardy fish other than a damsel can be used for cycling a tank. Although I am not going to quote the exact question, I am of the understanding that this was the crux of the question.
Reading through the thread I was relieved that the vast majority of the answers and comments did not just include a list animals that unfortunately are sometimes classified both hardy and expendable, the usual suspects belonging to the Family Pomacentridae, including Clowns and Damsels.
Thankfully the majority of the comments where inclined to discuss the Nitrogen Cycle itself and the many, many methods of developing an effective biological filter to convert toxic ammonia to less harmful compounds / elements. Also the effects and levels of these elements on the animals involved.
I read through many, including as always very informative thread @Lasse , but unfortunately not everyone's comments, so I apologize for any that I missed.
I am not trying to disprove or relegate any of the other methods that have been discussed. All I am saying is it is prudent to use a simple and effective precaution before adding the actual livestock.
One can study the data and read as many articles as one wishes, but with regards nature one must always be aware of its sometimes unpredictable path, it will often throw a side ball. That is why I believe the simple precaution of loading, stressing and testing without a live sample is prudent especially with regards the animals welfare.
Creating a diverse biological environment is in my opinion another topic altogether and could become rather distracting especially for newcomers to the hobby when discussing basic biological filtration (CYCLING A TANK)
I still can not see why so many people are reluctant to practice the simple procedure of using a measured ammonia source and test to validate the correct operation of a basic biological filter to convert a given ammonia load to less toxic forms of nitrogen, before the addition of livestock. Test ammonia level, add measured ammonia source, test ammonia source depletion time. If there is no evidence of an active biological filtration then add one in the form of Nitrifying Bacteria, (preferably and most commonly some form of sufficient surface area and a bacteria source would have been made available prior to testing the filter) ,once again readily available from the many manufacturers following the findings and patents of Dr. Hovanec. You can then follow any path you wish once this is proven. Even the most elaborate of methods include the addition of an ammonia source, be it fish or decaying organics. Surely using a form of ammonia that can be simply calculated and therefore more accurately compared just makes common sense. This can be tested in as little as 24 hours without any risk to livestock.
For those who have neither the inclination or time to read the remainder of my comments, then I don't blame you :) the above summary concludes my comments. Happy Reefing and Best Wishes from the UK to our fellow hobbyists where ever you abode.
Continued......
The main reason I love to participate with this forum is to keep up with my fellow reefers trials and tribulations, but to be honest my favorite part is to look at the photos of these amazing animals and aquariums. However I also appreciate the excellent articles by both qualified and experienced hobbyists.
My main interest over the past 30 -40 years has always been in respect to Aquatic Biology. As a consequence of my professional duties, as far as aquarium keeping is concerned. I have had large breaks in the hobby . So each time I start up again, I start a fresh as a novice just to keep up with modern methods and not be drawn into the comfort of "It works so why change it". I have seen huge strides since the Berlin and Dr Jaubert methods.
Although I have no academic qualification in this field. I do prefer to access most of my scientific information from my Logon to Researchgate and the many excellent professional journals.
As was pointed out to me by another member. I am very much aware of Peer Review and the importance of reference and citation. unfortunately many articles are not subject to peer review so must be taken in context. Also the vast majority of those that are peer reviewed are unfortunately not directed at the aquarium hobby or the keeping of ornamental species so I believe context is particularly important as is reading the whole article not just the abstract or conclusion.
As a professional with licences to import, aquaculture, and sell Marine Ornamentals in the United Kingdom, it is a stipulation of those licences to first certify an active biological filter before adding livestock and to maintain SOP's to ensure its operation is successfully maintained at all times. If I did not adhere to these stipulations, I would be in breach of at least one of those licences. In my profession it is not just classed as bad practice, to use livestock to routinely cycle an aquarium, it is a legal duty not to do so.
If you read all the way to this point, I am impressed, thank you for your patience.:)
Lasse
10K Club member
Ultimate Member
Reef Squad
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
R2R App User
Article Contributor
My Tank Thread
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2016
- Messages
- 12,835
- Reaction score
- 31,639
- Location
- Källarliden 14 D Bohus, Sweden
- What state or country do you live in
- Other International
@Tony Thompson
I´m aware of that the animal rights movement is stronger in the UK compared with Sweden and that fishless cycling was a hot issue 10 to 20 years ago in the UK. However, I did not know that it results in a law about fishless cycling in the UK. When I understand your standpoint.
In my article – I try to take a holistic point of view in the start, trying to show a path that exclude the huge (and some ways not controllable) input of NH3/NH4 that result in unbalance of the biological system and create this endless ugly stage and so on. A controlled start with other words. IMO – it can be done with “chemical” ammonia input too but in this case with much, much lower concentrations than is used today, we are talking about 3 – 4 mg NH3/NH4 per 10 litre daily input in a pH of 8.0 a little bit lower in pH 8.5. IMO - the rutten shrimp method just ask for problems - further on - it is total uncontrollable
In addition – there is a problem with measure NH3/NH4 at a hobbyist level. Most of these “ammonia” hobby tests are not reliable. Many of them often report concentrations around 0.2 – 0.3 even if the concentration is 0 IME.
Further on - many of them is based on mercury – and in Sweden as an example (and Norway too) is forbidden to use mercury if there are equally good methods without mercury – and in ammonia analyses – there is - but I do not think a hobbyist will pay the cost. Most of them measure the total NH3/NH4 content and you need to know the pH too in order to calculate the real toxic level of NH3. I have done an easy help to calculate this – here.
There are products that measure only the NH3 concentration – Seachem ammonia alert is one – I have not tested these and do not know if it is reliable or not – but what I understand from others – it works well
Sincerely Lasse
I´m aware of that the animal rights movement is stronger in the UK compared with Sweden and that fishless cycling was a hot issue 10 to 20 years ago in the UK. However, I did not know that it results in a law about fishless cycling in the UK. When I understand your standpoint.
In my article – I try to take a holistic point of view in the start, trying to show a path that exclude the huge (and some ways not controllable) input of NH3/NH4 that result in unbalance of the biological system and create this endless ugly stage and so on. A controlled start with other words. IMO – it can be done with “chemical” ammonia input too but in this case with much, much lower concentrations than is used today, we are talking about 3 – 4 mg NH3/NH4 per 10 litre daily input in a pH of 8.0 a little bit lower in pH 8.5. IMO - the rutten shrimp method just ask for problems - further on - it is total uncontrollable
In addition – there is a problem with measure NH3/NH4 at a hobbyist level. Most of these “ammonia” hobby tests are not reliable. Many of them often report concentrations around 0.2 – 0.3 even if the concentration is 0 IME.
Further on - many of them is based on mercury – and in Sweden as an example (and Norway too) is forbidden to use mercury if there are equally good methods without mercury – and in ammonia analyses – there is - but I do not think a hobbyist will pay the cost. Most of them measure the total NH3/NH4 content and you need to know the pH too in order to calculate the real toxic level of NH3. I have done an easy help to calculate this – here.
There are products that measure only the NH3 concentration – Seachem ammonia alert is one – I have not tested these and do not know if it is reliable or not – but what I understand from others – it works well
Sincerely Lasse
I read the whole thing:). At least with my posts - I've tried to stress that I would not just drop a fish in a tank with the thought that if it dies - who cares - or - worse yet - with the plan to 'toss the fish out' after the tank is cycled. I appreciate all of your thoughts! IMHO - there are products available today - that were not available 20 years ago that allow one to put living bacteria in the tank - with the fish and there will be no problem. Bacteria that developed over 6 months 'naturally' is the same bacteria that is added with a bottle, or soil, or old sand, or an old filter, or live rock.
What I'm surprised about is that people with no knowledge of microbiology use words like 'cruel', etc - when they have no knowledge of hot the bacteria even work. (I'm not referring to your - BTW - excellent post).
Somewhat off topic - there Are so many things that are spoken 'today' as if they were fact - just because they have been repeated so many times. You need to cycle a tank for x weeks (up to 6 months), you cant add coral or certain anemones until after a tank is a year old. Parasites rampant through the supply chain. etc etc. Its an interesting discussion.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/a-somewhat-long-myth-busters-poll.614860/
Here is a poll I just posted - apologize for the shameless advertising - but its Germaine to the thread
Here is a poll I just posted - apologize for the shameless advertising - but its Germaine to the thread
Paul Sands
Active Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2019
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 395
- What state or country do you live in
- California
Amen. Honestly surprised that this was even controversial and surprised that people are not only advocating for putting fish in tanks where the biological filtration hasn’t been verified, but putting fish in tanks where the biological filtration hasn’t been verified AND advocating for not bothering to test for ammonia.
Thanks for your post and I’m glad there is someone else on here that advocates for responsible methods of reefing.
Thanks for your post and I’m glad there is someone else on here that advocates for responsible methods of reefing.
@Paul Sands - you created the controversy LOL. It was said LONG ago - that its 'best' to check ammonia.
How though can manufacturers sell products saying - ok to add livestock on day 1. Are they irresponsible companies? If so - maybe you should start a letter writing campaign to them - rather than repeating the same things over and over. The bottom line - and its been shown scientifically on this thread - putting a small fish or a pair of clowns - into a 30 gallon tank will not produce enough ammonia to cause any problem. Especially if you use added bacteria. There is nothing irresponsible about that.
Would it be more accurate to say it is possible that ammonia build up can be avoided when fish are placed in a tank that is monitored and maintained by an experienced & knowledgeable person? That might be a different scenario than a newbie wanting to cycle his/her first tank and in a hurry to populate it. I'm always afraid we'll lend credence to marketing hype that might lead an inexperienced hobbyist to believe they could just dump in some magic elixir and start adding fish.
This is a great thread, even if it goes far away from the OP's original question. I've learned something about how free N is produced, its actual source in a new tank, and how to calculate its potential. I always thought the input was greater. Thanks everyone for that information. I'll hang up now and listen.
Yes - I think thats true (mentioned a while back - about the experience level). The key is not putting too many fish in (but isnt that the problem even with a supposedly cycled tank). So many LFS say get 10 fish - that would be a problem in any tank (including one thats 'cycled').
IMHO - the thing I have 're-learned' reading everyone's responses - is that there is no such thing as a 'cycled aquarium'. Now - I know I will rankle @Brandon on this one - but - the proof - if a large angelfish died in a 100 gallon aquarium - what would happen? If there was such a thing as a 'complete cycle' the dead angel would merely decompose, get eaten. Instead if not removed - ammonia rapidly increases with potential bad consequences.
New Posts
-
-
-
-
Florida Live Goods SPONSOR Coral Monsters Wholesale Stock List 8/22
- Latest: mauplascencia
-
