Best Fish to Cycle With

[MnFish1]

I read through the study but it was done with ammonia and not a fish. But nevertheless, seems more than plausible. Also I can say I’ve used some of the products mentioned and never had trouble cycling a tank. Perhaps we worry too much when cycling a tank and it’s not as big of an ordeal as it seems.

The next one will be done with fish. There is another thread started.

 

[Smarkow]

I think that’s likely that you missed something seeing as you are apparently researching this AFTER making a comment and therefore looking for information that helps prove your point instead of researching and looking for facts.

You are incorrect to assume this, and impolite to write it out. Please do not insult my willingness to go to peer-reviewed literature and support my advice. It is, indeed, a time-intensive effort, although one that I enjoy. We have a nice community here.

I’ve quarantined probably a few hundred clownfish. In a uncycled 20 gallon tank one or two of them has about a week before ammonia starts to get toxic and you have to start doing 50% or more water changes. I test a few times a day and use prime to help make the ammonia less toxic to fish

Thank you for sharing your experience. If you have a thread documenting your journey for the rest of us to learn from, industry experience or credentials, or a website I would be happy to review for my own knowledge and enjoyment. Please consider starting your first thread here on reef2reef so that you can share some pictures of your setup, so that we might better understand and appreciate your success. As you undoubtedly know, QT practices are a hot area of discussion at the moment, and we all enjoy pictures of tanks, fish rooms, and gadgets.
Stephen

 

[MnFish1]

I did. And I agree. A lot of time was spent doing this.

If you read the study - you would also have noted - in addition to what @Dr. Reef mentioned (and you can see from the tubes in the picture you posted) - that the ammonia level was likely higher than 8 ppm. Many manufacturers recommend using <5 ppm. Thus the second experiments (which duplicated the first except starting with 4 PPM and 2 PPM showed still that Fritz controls ammonia within a short period of time - others a little longer (I believe Dr. Tims) and the others only worked after the presumed addition of a carbon source (as compared to ammonia alone).

BTW - the study was started with the hypothesis that 'they would not work' not to support the use of bacteria in a bottle.

To the OP - what fish to use would seem to relate to the size of tank you're using. For example if you have a 200 gallon tank - and you are using fritz 900 as directed - you could probably put in several small - or a couple (3) larger fish. If you are using a 20 gallon - maybe a clownfish...

 

[MnFish1]

In this day and age there is NO reason to use fish at all under any circumstance as far as I can see....

Scenario 1- all dry rock- I have personally cycled tanks of all dry rock (Caribsea LifeRock) with just Dr Tim’s bottled ammonia (for convenience sake but you could use any unscented ammonia) and Biospira- had tank cycled in under a week.... no fish involved

Scenario 2- Live Rock... when it curing throw in some Biospira and again it will be cycled in under a week....

I have helped people start many different kinds of tanks all with Biospira and I’ve never had to use any fish....

You have not given any reason 'not' to use fish either. Many of the products (if not all) state that you can add fish immediately. I don't understand the 'outrage' with using products as directed on their labels.

I appreciate your anecdotal evidence - I wonder then why so many others require 3 weeks, 6 weeks, even 6 months?

The thing is - its all about bacteria. Bacteria will multiply with fish waste, added ammonia, or time (as @brandon429 has stated) - as things fall into the tank. To me there is no immorality using a fish to cycle. Note - this assumes that you have some product, old sand, an old filter, etc - providing enough bacteria such that ammonia levels do not get to toxic or even elevated levels.

Is the misunderstanding that you take a 100 gallon tank put a fish in and then they are subjected to 2 ppm ammonia and die in order to cycle the tank? That is not 'fish cycling'. Thats cruelty. To me using fish in 'starting a new aquarium' has no risk t the fish - and to me no reason not to do it.

 

[Smarkow]

Damsels are and can be tank nightmares. Honestly, Black mollies are great algae eaters, cheap and thrive well in saltwater. Also brackish fish such as Mono sebae or scats. These are inexpensive, disease resistant and will help seed your tank

I love my scats. I think underused in our hobby. My understanding is that they do eventually become large, so may need to be rehomed after a few years. My wife calls them “so ugly they’re cute.” The three I have are the most consistent schoolers in the tank, though of course now that I try to take this photo they are all spread out

 

[Paul Sands]

You have not given any reason 'not' to use fish either. Many of the products (if not all) state that you can add fish immediately. I don't understand the 'outrage' with using products as directed on their labels.

I appreciate your anecdotal evidence - I wonder then why so many others require 3 weeks, 6 weeks, even 6 months?

The thing is - its all about bacteria. Bacteria will multiply with fish waste, added ammonia, or time (as @brandon429 has stated) - as things fall into the tank. To me there is no immorality using a fish to cycle. Note - this assumes that you have some product, old sand, an old filter, etc - providing enough bacteria such that ammonia levels do not get to toxic or even elevated levels.

Is the misunderstanding that you take a 100 gallon tank put a fish in and then they are subjected to 2 ppm ammonia and die in order to cycle the tank? That is not 'fish cycling'. Thats cruelty. To me using fish in 'starting a new aquarium' has no risk t the fish - and to me no reason not to do it.

The reasons not to use live fish to cycle aquariums have been stated numerous times on this thread. The fact that you’ve chosen to ignore those reasons doesn’t mean that everyone has to continually re-state them.

It can literally take less than 24 hours to insure that a new tank is processing ammonia adequately BEFORE putting a fish in. Why are you so adamant that people not follow a simple, short step that costs almost nothing, to insure a tank is working and able to sustain life before they put a fish into it? To what end does your argument serve?

If you read the study - you would also have noted - in addition to what @Dr. Reef mentioned (and you can see from the tubes in the picture you posted) - that the ammonia level was likely higher than 8 ppm. Many manufacturers recommend using <5 ppm. Thus the second experiments (which duplicated the first except starting with 4 PPM and 2 PPM showed still that Fritz controls ammonia within a short period of time - others a little longer (I believe Dr. Tims) and the others only worked after the presumed addition of a carbon source (as compared to ammonia alone).

BTW - the study was started with the hypothesis that 'they would not work' not to support the use of bacteria in a bottle.

To the OP - what fish to use would seem to relate to the size of tank you're using. For example if you have a 200 gallon tank - and you are using fritz 900 as directed - you could probably put in several small - or a couple (3) larger fish. If you are using a 20 gallon - maybe a clownfish...

He’s already answered this question. You aren’t reading the thread at all. You are just scanning it looking for arguments.

 

[brandon429]

scats without ich= you have done really well that's neat

 

[Smarkow]

You have not given any reason 'not' to use fish either. Many of the products (if not all) state that you can add fish immediately. I don't understand the 'outrage' with using products as directed on their labels.

Agreed, the outrage seems disproportionate to the evidence. It’s hard for new reefers to stare at an empty tank. That does not make them bad people destined to fail at the hobby or be cruel to pets. The distinction is between best practice and acceptable practice. Fishless cycle is likely best practice, but a well thought out fish based cycle is also acceptable, and there are many ways to do this.

 

[Smarkow]

scats without ich= you have done really well that's neat

Thanks, I didn’t realize that was a particular concern with them. I purchased from liveaquaria, fwiw, have never had ich outbreak.
<finds largest piece of wood to knock on>

 

[MnFish1]

To the OP - here is a quick example calculation. A pair of clownfish produce approximately 7.125 mg ammonia/day (total). So depending on the tank size - and the end of a day placing 2 clowns in a tanks of varying sizes - will result in (with no added bacteria):

7.125 mg ammonia/day/38 liters (10 gallons) = 0.19 ppm ammonia

7.125/190 l (50 gallons) =0.038 ppm ammonia

7.125/380 l (100 gallons) = 0.019 ppm ammonia

If you look at the experiments done on the other thread - where the Fritz 900 dropped the ammonia levels to zero after less than 24 hours - there should never be a time that the ammonia level in the tank with the clowns will be >0. Let alone toxic at all. Note also - unlike with Dr. Tims, etc - when you add a fish at time 0 the ammonia is 0. it only slowly builds up over 24 hours. I.e. in the 10 gallon example the ammonia is not 0.19 ppm the minute the fish are added.

When I do a cycle with fish - I usually put the bacteria in about 12-24 hours before - then add the fish. Good luck with whatever method you choose to use.!!

 

[Paul Sands]

Agreed, the outrage seems disproportionate to the evidence. It’s hard for new reefers to stare at an empty tank. That does not make them bad people destined to fail at the hobby or be cruel to pets. The distinction is between best practice and acceptable practice. Fishless cycle is likely best practice, but a well thought out fish based cycle is also acceptable, and there are many ways to do this.

One of the “well thought out fish based cycles” suggested on this thread was to put fish in a new tank, dump a bottle of bacteria in, and then NOT test anything for months. I wouldn’t call that well thought out. At the very least you need to test for ammonia and I’d include nitrate. You need to be prepared to do a water change if ammonia or nitrate spike, which they often do with new tanks.

If the “experts” on this board can’t provide a well thought out fish based cycle, then why should we assume that someone that posts this question to the board could?

 

[MnFish1]

Agreed, the outrage seems disproportionate to the evidence. It’s hard for new reefers to stare at an empty tank. That does not make them bad people destined to fail at the hobby or be cruel to pets. The distinction is between best practice and acceptable practice. Fishless cycle is likely best practice, but a well thought out fish based cycle is also acceptable, and there are many ways to do this.

Its hard for old reefers to stare at an empty tank as well :)- especially if there MAY not be a reason for it. In fact - I would suggest the people more likely to be successful using fish to cycle are the 'reefers with more experience'. Maybe (unless one has been done) this is a good subject for a poll. I have not heard any reason on this thread (yet) - why a fishless cycle is 'best practice' as compared to 'the most common practice'.

Again - I'm not talking about the people who take a couple damsels use them to cycle a tank - and then toss them in the toilet - because they never wanted damsels (or mollies, or whatever).

 

[BeejReef]

We have to remember to put ourselves in the new reefer's shoes.

If you already have a tank, cycled media that you trust is not an issue. You understand and are confident in your testing. You have all sorts of fish junk lying around and can probably improvise a hospital tank with materials on hand.

The new reefer (typically the one asking a cycling question) has none of these things. They don't use words like "media." They're not confronting the cycling issue in a vacuum. They're also setting up their lights, breaking in their protein skimmer, deliberating a fuge and numerous reactors. They have to decide on QT or not. Ofc, there's no consensus on lights on or off, skimmer on or off, QT or not. There's not really even a consensus on what is a "cycle."

Often times, they're repeatedly warned away from established live rock or sand and encouraged to start with virgin media.

When you do serious reading, you then come across people setting up QT's or hospital tanks in hours to house seriously ill fish, or fish seriously stressed from capture and shipping. Yet, the same person who does that may well tell the noob that they're being cruel if they put two juvenile clowns and bottled bac in a 120g.

My point (finally) is that the great cycle debate could really use a unified "stock answer," much as seems to have developed between those that are passionate about different types of qt. They will acknowledge that some people do it this way, some people do it that way. I do it like this. Whatever approach you decide on, be prepared to do such and such and go fallow if you see this or that.

The key here being ammonia > ? If you see this, be prepared to 1) ?, 2)?, and 3)?

 

[MnFish1]

One of the “well thought out fish based cycles” suggested on this thread was to put fish in a new tank, dump a bottle of bacteria in, and then NOT test anything for months. I wouldn’t call that well thought out. At the very least you need to test for ammonia and I’d include nitrate. You need to be prepared to do a water change if ammonia or nitrate spike, which they often do with new tanks.

If the “experts” on this board can’t provide a well thought out fish based cycle, then why should we assume that someone that posts this question to the board could?

Here is a well thought out fish-cycle.

1. Fill the aquarium with salt water have adequate filtration/oxygenation, etc.
2. Add whatever rock/sand you desire - making sure that most if not all of the 'dead things' are removed.
3. Add a marine-specific bottled bacteria that has been stored appropriately, has not expired, (for example Fritz 900) according to instructions
4. Add a reasonable number/size of fish for the tank you're using - as a beginning step you can read the post above where I showed how much ammonia a pair of clowns produce/day.
5. Continue to add bacteria (if instructed in the instructions - some varieties do).
6. Watch your fish. If there is signs of distress or problems - test ammonia. Add more bacteria - or prime if needed (I have never had to add prime).
7. If you want to test ammonia - go ahead and test ammonia nitrate will be rather worthless as any nitrite may show a false positive.
8. If the manufacturer recommends water changes - or no water changes for a certain period - follow those instructions.
9. Feed sparingly over the first couple weeks.
PS - the reason to test ammonia would be if you think you may have overshot the number of fish (i.e. added too many for the bacteria to detoxify). Again - the manufacturer has recommendations of about how many fish to add when starting up.

 

[DSC reef]

One of the “well thought out fish based cycles” suggested on this thread was to put fish in a new tank, dump a bottle of bacteria in, and then NOT test anything for months. I wouldn’t call that well thought out. At the very least you need to test for ammonia and I’d include nitrate. You need to be prepared to do a water change if ammonia or nitrate spike, which they often do with new tanks.

If the “experts” on this board can’t provide a well thought out fish based cycle, then why should we assume that someone that posts this question to the board could?

Why you you assume anyone's knowledge to begin with?

 

[MnFish1]

The reasons not to use live fish to cycle aquariums have been stated numerous times on this thread. The fact that you’ve chosen to ignore those reasons doesn’t mean that everyone has to continually re-state them.

It can literally take less than 24 hours to insure that a new tank is processing ammonia adequately BEFORE putting a fish in. Why are you so adamant that people not follow a simple, short step that costs almost nothing, to insure a tank is working and able to sustain life before they put a fish into it? To what end does your argument serve?

Well - I'm not sure this is the case. People have said 'its cruel', or some variation of that. People have said that bottled bacteria can 'fail', people have said its an exercise in patience to wait 3-6 weeks. You seem to say above that it takes less than 24 hours to insure a new tank is processing ammonia adequately before putting a fish in (how????). What is the simple short step we're talking about? Im not adamant about anything.

Apologetically, your post above makes no sense to me. I was trying to help the OP answer his question (what is the best fish besides damsels to cycle a tank)?. It seems that you and others are the ones with the agenda i.e using fish and bacteria to cycle a tank is 'wrong'. The OP asked a simple question - then someone started the debate about whether it was 'moral' or 'correct' or 'the best way'. I gave information to help him/her make a decision. No more no less.

Why would I care if someone uses fish, Dr. Tims, a handful of bacteria from another tank, 6 months of observing rock in water or any other method? I don't. There is no right or wrong (except to you - I'm wrong).

He’s already answered this question. You aren’t reading the thread at all. You are just scanning it looking for arguments.

Pot meet kettle

 

[bluprntguy]

Its hard for old reefers to start at an empty tank as well :)- especially if there MAY not be a reason for it. In fact - I would suggest the people more likely to be successful using fish to cycle are the 'reefers with more experience'. Maybe (unless one has been done) this is a good subject for a poll. I have not heard any reason on this thread (yet) - why a fishless cycle is 'best practice' as compared to 'the most common practice'.

Again - I'm not talking about the people who take a couple damsels use them to cycle a tank - and then toss them in the toilet - because they never wanted damsels (or mollies, or whatever).

This simply isn't true. I've been in this hobby since high school, so that's some 25 odd years of "experience". I've used bottled bacteria to start up almost every tank over at least the last 5 years, including numerous quarantine tanks. While it's certainly worked most times, it also fails occasionally. I've had tanks that needed bacteria every day for weeks and some that needed one dose and I never saw a blip of ammonia. I've had to toss bottles of bacteria and switch to another brand (I suspect they got hot at some point and the bacteria died). The only thing I've had consistent results with is Fritz Turbostart 900. It's more difficult to get because it has to stay refrigerated. I've always tried to start up any tank at least a few days ahead of time (preferably a week) to insure that bacteria have some time to colonize and to allow me time to confirm that biological filtration is working (and correct it if it isn't). This doesn't take much planning.

Best practice is to do fishless cycling as Dr, Reef noted in his response yesterday (I suspect he has more experience than either you or I). We should be recommending best practices, not practices that cut corners because we don't want to see an empty tank for a week. Go shop for corals while you are waiting.

The recommendations for "fish based cycling" that I've seen in this thread miss critical elements of testing and control/correction for ammonia. Sometimes that's apparently on purpose, but most of the time it's just an oversight or lack of clarity from a hastily typed forum response. If someone would take some time to develop and articulate a "fish based cycling" protocol that works and is clear enough that a newbie doesn't miss the whole testing and correction part, I think that would go a long way to convincing others that this is a reasonable approach. Right now, I simply haven't seen anything that approaches that level of completeness, and I've seen enough posts that create significant confusion about it, which is why I continue to believe that fishless cycling is still by far the best practice.

 

[Lasse]

or nitrate spike,

What´s bad with a nitrate (NO3) spike?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[DSC reef]

Never lost a fish during a cycle no matter if we used real live rock or cured live rock. Always used a small fish we planned to keep and always kept an eye on ammonia levels. If I planned on going with all dry rock then a fish less cycle would fit the bill. I think soapboxes are a bit high with people saying its cruel to use a fish in a cycle when in reality it's not if done correctly. Never have I filled a tank with dry rock and dropped a fish in that I did not plan on keeping and hope for the best. It appears that's what is assumed you do if you use a fish to cycle a tank. Our next tank will be using Tampa bay live rock and a clownfish we plan to keep:D

 

[MnFish1]

Best practice is to do fishless cycling as Dr, Reef noted in his response yesterday (I suspect he has more experience than either you or I). We should be recommending best practices, not practices that cut corners because we don't want to see an empty tank for a week. Go shop for corals while you are waiting.

The recommendations for "fish based cycling" that I've seen in this thread miss critical elements of testing and control/correction for ammonia. Sometimes that's apparently on purpose, but most of the time it's just an oversight or lack of clarity from a hastily typed forum response. If someone would take some time to develop and articulate a "fish based cycling" protocol that works and is clear enough that a newbie doesn't miss the whole testing and correction part, I think that would go a long way to convincing others that this is a reasonable approach. Right now, I simply haven't seen anything that approaches that level of completeness, and I've seen enough posts that create significant confusion about it, which is why I continue to believe that fishless cycling is still by far the best practice.

Its all opinion and experience. And though I'm sure Dr Reef has a lot of experience - I would suggest that @Lasse who has a different opinion - has just as much. The point is not to compare experience nor is it to prove one side or the other.

If you go back with an open mind -and read some of the responses that flat out say 'this is wrong', etc and realize that there is little information to back those statements up you might see where I'm coming from.

I read @Dr. Reef's response a little differently - perhaps because if he really believed it was 'the best practice' to use fishless cycling - he wouldn't be doing an experiment with Fish cycling with the seneye company as a sponsor (i.e. he has an open mind to the question).

You must not have read my post above about a fish based cycle - in which I tried to list a relatively straightforward protocol. In any case - I don't know which is 'better'. I see multiple 'cycling threads' where the debate here looks like eating cotton candy on a sunny day (i.e. there is an extreme amount of debate as to how to even do 'fishless cycles' let alone comparing fishless cycles to using fish.

My main purpose was to answer the OP. Personally - I find answers like 'do it this way' '+1', etc with little or no explanation 'why' he shouldn't do it a certain way are not only unhelpful they can be misleading...

The goal of fishless cycling is that the fish is NEVER exposed to elevated levels of ammonia - because the bacteria is present. So the multiple posts about cruelty, have you seen what ammonia does to fish, etc etc - are irreverent. No one here including the OP are trying to be 'cruel'.

Here is an opinion. The reason people have gone to fishless cycling has little or nothing to do with cruelty, etc. It has to do with companies selling products - test kits, bacteria, ammonia. Again - judging by the threads on cycling - there are plenty of products being bought and failing resulting in many tests, wasted water, salt, etc.

Thanks by the way for your thoughtful response