Cycle question

[SymbioticReefer]

When we cycle a tank, we know it’s cycled after ammonia and nitrites hit zero, and with the presence of nitrates. We also now know that zero nitrates is bad. We used to do a water change at the end of a cycle to get rid of nitrates. Also, we now do water changes to replenish trace elements, not so much for effective nitrate and phosphate control. So, doesn’t it stand to reason that when I am done with my cycle, there is no need for a water change? There will be no coral in the water to consume trace elements. Nitrates will likely be below 5 ppm. So, doesn’t sound to me like a water change is necessary. Am I missing something? I’ve been out of the hobby for a few years and I had a brain injury so sometimes I struggle with making a connection. Thanks in advance.

 

[Jekyl]

Water change after is just to get nitrate in order.

 

[SymbioticReefer]

Water change after is just to get nitrate in order.

I understand that. That’s my whole point. If nitrates end up below say 5ppm after the cycle, then is it even necessary?

 

[brandon429]

And because some people have dosed way too much ammonia, and paid for at most ten day duration bottle bac. It makes no sense to pay for ten day bottle bac, and dose the degree of ammonia it takes a month to clear, and then wait a month. By then it would be cycled without paying for the bottle bac and then using it incorrectly. Doing a water change by a known deposition date for a particular brand of bac is a way of making the cycle end right there. The refill is clean water above working slicks. Can carry fish, cycle is done. that summary above is old cycling science which used to be the exclusive way, we build fifty page threads doing opposite of that summary so that people can get consistent planned start dates for the setup. Timely starts



if you wind up with higher or lower nitrate then that, it’s of no concern. Only old cycling science factors or measures nitrite and nitrate. New cycling science only cares about ammonia control it’s the burning param. The other two are neutral impact in reefing, so we quit measuring and reacting to nitrite and nitrate.


where cheap test kits are all that’s available for ammonia, vs seneye for example, we do better deferring to known time waits then the water change vs waiting on a cheap test to clear, which takes a month usually. Seneye shows the system ready a few days after the start, using non digital test kits and believing them as the bottom line is also old cycling science.

 

[Azedenkae]

When we cycle a tank, we know it’s cycled after ammonia and nitrites hit zero, and with the presence of nitrates. We also now know that zero nitrates is bad. We used to do a water change at the end of a cycle to get rid of nitrates. Also, we now do water changes to replenish trace elements, not so much for effective nitrate and phosphate control. So, doesn’t it stand to reason that when I am done with my cycle, there is no need for a water change? There will be no coral in the water to consume trace elements. Nitrates will likely be below 5 ppm. So, doesn’t sound to me like a water change is necessary. Am I missing something? I’ve been out of the hobby for a few years and I had a brain injury so sometimes I struggle with making a connection. Thanks in advance.

There's a few things here that needs unpacking.

First, a cycle is done when we know the tank can handle a certain amount of ammonia a day, how much depends on the nitrification capacity a person wants. 1ppm is enough for most tanks, but 2ppm is safer, and some go for 4ppm a day as a stretch goal. So it's not just about when ammonia and nitrite hit zero, it's about how fast from a certain point.

Depending on how one cycles, one can also have way higher than 5ppm.

At the same time, it takes quite a lot of nitrate for it to be toxic.

And lastly, long story short, yeah generally we do not need to do a water change after a cycle, no. It became an expectation somewhere along the line but has never been actually true. Or rather, for most tanks. I have not done a water change since my tank was set up a month and a half ago for example, with live stock in for almost as long. The corals and anemone, along with algae in my tank consumes all the excess nutrients.

 

[Manny’s Reef]

When we cycle a tank, we know it’s cycled after ammonia and nitrites hit zero, and with the presence of nitrates. We also now know that zero nitrates is bad. We used to do a water change at the end of a cycle to get rid of nitrates. Also, we now do water changes to replenish trace elements, not so much for effective nitrate and phosphate control. So, doesn’t it stand to reason that when I am done with my cycle, there is no need for a water change? There will be no coral in the water to consume trace elements. Nitrates will likely be below 5 ppm. So, doesn’t sound to me like a water change is necessary. Am I missing something? I’ve been out of the hobby for a few years and I had a brain injury so sometimes I struggle with making a connection. Thanks in advance.

I think what I see in your post is an old school way of thinking clashing with what we know today. A basic cycle used to be seen as what you stated: ammonia -> nitrite -> nitrate. When nitrates were present, then the cycle was complete. I still think this is a viable way of looking at things, under one condition. That is if you did not dose ammonia to feed the bacteria in a bottle. From what I read, people are prolonging the cycle with this method. So, if you add a shrimp (as was done before) or ghost feed during the cycle, and you end the cycle with a sub 5ppm nitrate reading, then I would say that you absolutely do not need to do a water change at all. No reason for it. However, if you dosed ammonia and somehow you end the cycle with, lets say (completely arbitrary) 30ppm nitrate, then you should perform a water change. Does this make sense?

 

[Azedenkae]

I think what I see in your post is an old school way of thinking clashing with what we know today. A basic cycle used to be seen as what you stated: ammonia -> nitrite -> nitrate. When nitrates were present, then the cycle was complete. I still think this is a viable way of looking at things, under one condition. That is if you did not dose ammonia to feed the bacteria in a bottle. From what I read, people are prolonging the cycle with this method. So, if you add a shrimp (as was done before) or ghost feed during the cycle, and you end the cycle with a sub 5ppm nitrate reading, then I would say that you absolutely do not need to do a water change at all. No reason for it. However, if you dosed ammonia and somehow you end the cycle with, lets say (completely arbitrary) 30ppm nitrate, then you should perform a water change. Does this make sense?

The reason why ammonia-dosing seems to be prolonged compared to other methods is because it is growing the right type of microorganism. Ghostfeeding or adding shrimp can feed heterotrophs that also consume ammonia as a nitrogen source, thereby depleting ammonia but not actually via nitrification. That can be why nitrate at the end of a cycle with this method is pretty low.

Ammonia-dosing forces the growth of autotrophic nitrifiers (which use ammonia (and nitrite) as an energy source), which is the whole purpose of the cycle itself. Nitrifiers tend to be really slow growing microorganisms, so it would be slower.

In a sense, the slowness is a good indication that things are going in the right direction.

With that said, with bottled bac products (specifically really good ones like Fritz or Bio-Spira) or simply using established biomedia, this can be a bit moot because fishless cycling via ammonia-dosing can be really fast too anyways.

 

[brandon429]

All good posts and ideas.

I think the reason we decided to add supplemental rules to the old ways, move up and specify the ready date vs wait patiently for it, is because we found the real killer of fish was environmental and disease factors that present regardless of cycle approach.


Fully waited 4 months lead up cycles, the ultimate conservative approach, doesn’t get any degree of less disease expression than skip cycle bottle bac setups where two clowns go in day one along with bottle bac, the single most liberal means of cycling (no fish are burned it’s why posts we can search for bottle bac cycles all work fine for a few months before that velvet)


the #1 factor that will cause loss to fish in a new tank has to be addressed independent of the cycle; choosing the fast way of dosing a tank’s filter from a bottle wasn’t an ineffective option. It used to be painted as bad. Rushed etc, burning fish. But no fish ever acted burned, and as we speak in the disease forum several new reefs who are under eight months old are posting for stop loss help and they completed all the terms of old school cycling where there must be zero ammonia and zero nitrite and some degree of nitrate. The extra wait got them no measurable benefit. Quarantine and fallow is about to provide benefit after basics like feed and water quality are assessed. The cycle won’t be inquired about it’ll be how they directly disease prepped for fish or not.

 

[Manny’s Reef]

The reason why ammonia-dosing seems to be prolonged compared to other methods is because it is growing the right type of microorganism. Ghostfeeding or adding shrimp can feed heterotrophs that also consume ammonia as a nitrogen source, thereby depleting ammonia but not actually via nitrification. That can be why nitrate at the end of a cycle with this method is pretty low.

Ammonia-dosing forces the growth of autotrophic nitrifiers (which use ammonia (and nitrite) as an energy source), which is the whole purpose of the cycle itself. Nitrifiers tend to be really slow growing microorganisms, so it would be slower.

In a sense, the slowness is a good indication that things are going in the right direction.

With that said, with bottled bac products (specifically really good ones like Fritz or Bio-Spira) or simply using established biomedia, this can be a bit moot because fishless cycling via ammonia-dosing can be really fast too anyways.

Sure. I agree. However, analyzing the context of the OP, it seems that his perspective is old school thinking. Sounds to me (and I could be wrong) like he is used to viewing the cycle as a basic ammonia to nitrite to nitrate process. When we viewed the cycle in this manner, it was recommended to perform a WC and then add fish. This method would absolutely differ from a fishless cycle. But I'm not trying to compare the two. I am trying to assess where the OP is coming from, and more importantly, answer the substantive question: Whether a WC is necessary after a cycle where there is less than 5ppm nitrate.

 

[brandon429]

And there certainly was no harm in using the old way, it produced most of our first tanks agreed.

some reasons I’ve stopped using the old way:

-nobody gets a planned ready date. It’s a bunch of open ended waits.

-doesn’t help in disease % loss reduction


-oversells bottle bac and teaches doubt. I trace hundreds of threads ready linkable that show a tiny bit of detected nitrite or lack of nitrate causing someone to believe their bacteria never worked, so they buy repeat bottle bac for a perfectly fine cycle all taught out of doubt a cycle can stall (the water change on the assigned start date relative to initial stew mix unsticks all cycles)

-old cycling has no alternate means of establishment to deal with misreading or misreported non digital test kits. They don’t factor misreads in assigning waits; all params are accepted as fact and a sale usually results if we watch enough patterns. All cycles stall it seems, if we use the old evaluation ways.

using digital ammonia tracking, no cycles have been shown to stall in a display reef: courtesy of tuned seneye threads= new cycling science



so it’s ok to old school cycle but those options above are in play at all times.

 

[SymbioticReefer]

Sure. I agree. However, analyzing the context of the OP, it seems that his perspective is old school thinking. Sounds to me (and I could be wrong) like he is used to viewing the cycle as a basic ammonia to nitrite to nitrate process. When we viewed the cycle in this manner, it was recommended to perform a WC and then add fish. This method would absolutely differ from a fishless cycle. But I'm not trying to compare the two. I am trying to assess where the OP is coming from, and more importantly, answer the substantive question: Whether a WC is necessary after a cycle where there is less than 5ppm nitrate.

You are right. When I left the hobby, cycling was something basic. We ghost fed and let things take place for 30 days. Then we performed a water change and added a clown or damsel. I watched many BRS videos that tend to say that water changes are really only necessary for replenishing trace elements. That water changes suck for reducing nitrates and phosphates. That’s where my question is coming from. Not gonna lie, I can’t really follow some of the science mentioned. Heterotrophic? I don’t even know what that means.

 

[SymbioticReefer]

And there certainly was no harm in using the old way, it produced most of our first tanks agreed.

some reasons I’ve stopped using the old way:

-nobody gets a planned ready date. It’s a bunch of open ended waits.

-doesn’t help in disease % loss reduction


-oversells bottle bac and teaches doubt. I trace hundreds of threads ready linkable that show a tiny bit of detected nitrite or lack of nitrate causing someone to believe their bacteria never worked, so they buy repeat bottle bac for a perfectly fine cycle all taught out of doubt a cycle can stall (the water change on the assigned start date relative to initial stew mix unsticks all cycles)

-old cycling has no alternate means of establishment to deal with misreading or misreported non digital test kits. They don’t factor misreads in assigning waits; all params are accepted as fact and a sale usually results if we watch enough patterns.



so it’s ok to old school cycle but those options above are in play at all times.

Beautiful response

 

[brandon429]

And I’ll get off soapbox after this last preach


the dawn of new cycling science came from skeptical aquarists walking around at reef conventions, or reading about reef conventions for the last thirty years, where at NO time did any instant display skip cycle reef ever stall.



hmmmm


so, if you want to sell me something you get a definite start date reef and no open ended wait? What? Only forum click buyers get the dreaded stall training and wait six weeks after paying you for a skip cycle? Something smells here.


new cycling science is a deconstruction of the sales gradient that begins by having two sets of rules dominate the seller vs buyer classes in reefing.


these tricks only work for display reefing.


for freshwater, the old way is the only way. nitrite harms in freshwater, just not for us.


in a low salinity holding tank like a hospital or qt tank, nitrites matter / MNFish reminded us of that in recent nitrite debate posts. In a very tight niche of marine keeping we get to cheat the old rules all snootily

 

[Azedenkae]

Sure. I agree. However, analyzing the context of the OP, it seems that his perspective is old school thinking. Sounds to me (and I could be wrong) like he is used to viewing the cycle as a basic ammonia to nitrite to nitrate process. When we viewed the cycle in this manner, it was recommended to perform a WC and then add fish. This method would absolutely differ from a fishless cycle. But I'm not trying to compare the two. I am trying to assess where the OP is coming from, and more importantly, answer the substantive question: Whether a WC is necessary after a cycle where there is less than 5ppm nitrate.

Gotcha.

 

[Sink_or_Swim]

There's a few things here that needs unpacking.

First, a cycle is done when we know the tank can handle a certain amount of ammonia a day, how much depends on the nitrification capacity a person wants. 1ppm is enough for most tanks, but 2ppm is safer, and some go for 4ppm a day as a stretch goal. So it's not just about when ammonia and nitrite hit zero, it's about how fast from a certain point.

Depending on how one cycles, one can also have way higher than 5ppm.

At the same time, it takes quite a lot of nitrate for it to be toxic.

And lastly, long story short, yeah generally we do not need to do a water change after a cycle, no. It became an expectation somewhere along the line but has never been actually true. Or rather, for most tanks. I have not done a water change since my tank was set up a month and a half ago for example, with live stock in for almost as long. The corals and anemone, along with algae in my tank consumes all the excess nutrients.

Glad to hear this applies to saltwater too - I've had freshwater tanks for 30+ years, and after a tank is cycled and established... honestly I never did water changes unless some big problem developed. Most recent tank, did one or two water changes over 10 years. Testing and not overstocking/overfeeding, and plenty of live plants saved me I think... but I noticed water changes actually seemed to unnecessarily stress fish and even cause more issues than they're worth. My 2 cents.

 

[LRT]

Interesting and glad I ran across this old cycling thread from last week.
@SymbioticReefer was everything answered that you were trying to cover here?
Randy gave us other options for cycling tanks for livestock ready, specifically by cycling ammonia instead.
@Dan_P has done some really impressive work with Seneye, side by side to calibrated lab grade equipment(in the lab) to show us that given whats available to us reefers we can actually track toxic ammonia to specific levels in the thousandths.
Only felt this was necessary to expand on here because at the end of the day, in a controlled setting as described, especially with minimal, controlled measured feeding and ammonia processing its not hard to find absoloute 0's and the answers to the questions your asking.
For me Its more how much ammonia do we need to process up front to carry a specific number of fish or bioload for our given reefs and what is the balance of nutrients in relationship to that balance before we end up in trouble with undesirables?
Also stocking corals when livestock ready plays a huge part in this process here.

 

[LRT]

There's a few things here that needs unpacking.

First, a cycle is done when we know the tank can handle a certain amount of ammonia a day, how much depends on the nitrification capacity a person wants. 1ppm is enough for most tanks, but 2ppm is safer, and some go for 4ppm a day as a stretch goal. So it's not just about when ammonia and nitrite hit zero, it's about how fast from a certain point.

Depending on how one cycles, one can also have way higher than 5ppm.

At the same time, it takes quite a lot of nitrate for it to be toxic.

And lastly, long story short, yeah generally we do not need to do a water change after a cycle, no. It became an expectation somewhere along the line but has never been actually true. Or rather, for most tanks. I have not done a water change since my tank was set up a month and a half ago for example, with live stock in for almost as long. The corals and anemone, along with algae in my tank consumes all the excess nutrients.

How many fish and cuc can 1 or 2ppm total ammonia actually process in what size tank? Can a 10 gallon tank process just a fraction of that and maintain undisturbed nh3 cycling? If so is it really necessary to overload bioload up front and what kind of repercussions may that have on system in a nutrient un-controlled system?

And there certainly was no harm in using the old way, it produced most of our first tanks agreed.

some reasons I’ve stopped using the old way:

-nobody gets a planned ready date. It’s a bunch of open ended waits.

-doesn’t help in disease % loss reduction


-oversells bottle bac and teaches doubt. I trace hundreds of threads ready linkable that show a tiny bit of detected nitrite or lack of nitrate causing someone to believe their bacteria never worked, so they buy repeat bottle bac for a perfectly fine cycle all taught out of doubt a cycle can stall (the water change on the assigned start date relative to initial stew mix unsticks all cycles)

-old cycling has no alternate means of establishment to deal with misreading or misreported non digital test kits. They don’t factor misreads in assigning waits; all params are accepted as fact and a sale usually results if we watch enough patterns. All cycles stall it seems, if we use the old evaluation ways.

using digital ammonia tracking, no cycles have been shown to stall in a display reef: courtesy of tuned seneye threads= new cycling science



so it’s ok to old school cycle but those options above are in play at all times.

And I’ll get off soapbox after this last preach


the dawn of new cycling science came from skeptical aquarists walking around at reef conventions, or reading about reef conventions for the last thirty years, where at NO time did any instant display skip cycle reef ever stall.



hmmmm


so, if you want to sell me something you get a definite start date reef and no open ended wait? What? Only forum click buyers get the dreaded stall training and wait six weeks after paying you for a skip cycle? Something smells here.


new cycling science is a deconstruction of the sales gradient that begins by having two sets of rules dominate the seller vs buyer classes in reefing.


these tricks only work for display reefing.


for freshwater, the old way is the only way. nitrite harms in freshwater, just not for us.


in a low salinity holding tank like a hospital or qt tank, nitrites matter / MNFish reminded us of that in recent nitrite debate posts. In a very tight niche of marine keeping we get to cheat the old rules all snootily

I'm not sure if I like old and new science anymore. Randy has been talking about alot of this stuff for awhile. Its probably more like old science proven with new science or something along those lines lol.

 

[Azedenkae]

How many fish and cuc can 1 or 2ppm total ammonia actually process in what size tank? Can a 10 gallon tank process just a fraction of that and maintain undisturbed nh3 cycling? If so is it really necessary to overload bioload up front and what kind of repercussions may that have on system in a nutrient un-controlled system?

Can you rephrase your questions? Sorry I do not understand what you are trying to ask.

 

[brandon429]

Aze cannot and has not ever posted one incidence of a fail to show the actual risk he's implying, there's not any actual failed cycles i can find either. We're both searching endlessly for a fake claim designed solely to sell the masses copious repeats of bottle bac for the same aquarium



For example, the cycles here aren't brought to 2 ppm and we're at 30 straight pages of happy cycles, see how the risk relay is just made up, heels dug in?

How to unstick any seemingly stuck cycle

non digital ammonia test kit readings (api, Red Sea, nyos, seachem badges) make you think you aren’t cycled when indeed you are if you owned a $200 expensive seneye meter, you’d never be doubting your cycle status. since .01% of the reefing population owns these, we need a way to help the...

www.reef2reef.com

Reef cycles don't fail. Of the four types of cycles we see they each have a predetermined completion time, and that's tested using other people's reefs for two straight years above


When people rush the known completion time per cycle, simple dilution and pH trending common for reef cycles saves them anyway, it's why he can't post a fail example that isn't just a common test kit misread off api.

The reason I take umbrage with false relay of cycling info is because it tricks people into buying more bottle bac for perceived false stalls and because he omits disease prep info in all his cycling posts, which kills fish and leaves new cyclers unprepared.

Aze needs to own a seneye more than anyone on this board, he should be gifted a free one in fact.

 

[Cell]

Aze needs to own a seneye more than anyone on this board, he should be gifted a free one in fact.

Nah bro, if anyone deserves a free Seneye around here, it's you.