Tank cycling and animal stress - what stores push vs whats right

[SDK]

I started my tank with live sand and rock and a bottle of bacteria. I didn’t want to add fish for weeks and the lfs insisted I’d be fine.

I only saw a very small ammonia blip. The nitrites lasted a few days longer but were just barely detectable. I managed the nitrogen cycle in under a week.

My qt tank for fish is taking a lot longer to cycle. No rock, no sand, etc. so that’s my limiting factor. I suspect it depends more on what you’re starting with for how quickly you can add fish without stressing them too much.

Some Bio Spira will help if you are not already using it. Going forward, tuck a small sponge filter or bag of Matrix in the sump area of your display tank. Then if you need to set a qt tank up in a hurry, you can use this to have an instantly mature filter ready to go.

 

[Lukas75]

In the “old days” I did. But it is cruel and pointless nowadays. I haven’t cycled with fish in probably a decade now. Besides the fact that most of the fish I actually want are too fragile for a cycle. I’d rather not bring a fish home to keep it in subpar water only to stress it out when I am “done with it”, by bagging it up and taking it back for round two for the fish.

 

[Bleigh]

Some Bio Spira will help if you are not already using it. Going forward, tuck a small sponge filter or bag of Matrix in the sump area of your display tank. Then if you need to set a qt tank up in a hurry, you can use this to have an instantly mature filter ready to go.

That's a great idea! Definitely going to do that! Thanks for the tip.

 

[Tamberav]

Yes - because that is the most kindly way for all organism to start an aquarium. Can you tell me the reason why my way of starting an aquarium is able to harm/stress fish at all. which toxic substances are you afraid off?

With the method I highlite - there is no chance that you will have toxic levels of any compound at all - even in a 5 gallon tank



IMO - That dry rocks leak PO4 is a myth - at least have not the ones I have used done that. PO4 bound to calcium is very difficult to dissolve in normal pH (around 8). However, it will work as a storage because there is solubility constant that balance the equilibrium between water and rocks/sand. There is a very, very low percent of the bound PO4 that will be as free PO4 in the water in salt water with pH over 7.8. During normal circumstances – it will work as your bank – guaranteed that you will not be completely without PO4 if your aquarium consumes more PO4 than you dput in / recycle internally.

Yea - there is many ways to skin a cat but I try to work along the KISS concept. Keep It Stupidly Simple.

Sincerely Lasse

When I mean dry rocks and PO4, I do not mean bound up PO4. Some of the popular dry rock here is full of VISIBLE organics. Someone even posted a dried dead eel that came on their dry rock. It's kind of a waste of good life.... pull rock from ocean... dry it out.. killing the life....then sell it with all the dead dried up crap on it.

Pukini on BRS website says"": "NOTE: This rock does come out of the ocean and may have some dead material on it such as sponges or other critters. We strongly suggest soaking or curing the rock before use in an active aquarium."

I would say fishless cycling is pretty KISS. Nothing crazy difficult about it.

 

[Lasse]

I try to....daily. I keep them fully submerged in water, feed them fish food, and many other things that are inHUMANe.

you got the point

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

When I mean dry rocks and PO4, I do not mean bound up PO4. Some of the popular dry rock here is full of VISIBLE organics. Someone even posted a dried dead eel that came on their dry rock. It's kind of a waste of good life.... pull rock from ocean... dry it out.. killing the life....then sell it with all the dead dried up crap on it.

Pukini on BRS website says"": "NOTE: This rock does come out of the ocean and may have some dead material on it such as sponges or other critters. We strongly suggest soaking or curing the rock before use in an active aquarium."

I would say fishless cycling is pretty KISS. Nothing crazy difficult about it.

For me - this is not a big problem - just brush the worst off and use the other organics as a P source in the start. If you doing a fishless cycling - I can´t see the problem either - you do not even need to clean them at all - you have your "rotten shrimp" for free - or do you believe that a shrimp bought from the grocery store not will realize some PO4 when it will be broken down by bacteria giving you the necessary ammonium (for cycling)? I can´t see any big differences between using dry rocks (with organics) or adding one or two shrimps an let the rotten (that´s organics too) The good thing with my method is during the first weeks – the ammonium production from the organics that will rotten is weak – the ammonium from the fish is the major contributor to the ammonium needed for starting the nitrification cycle. This small amount (and that´s the load will be slowly risen) will allow you to add CUC after a couple of days and when nutrients from the stones starts to leak out – you already have an established army of CUC grazing on the algae


For the book - to try to cycle without an ammonium source will create a new cycle when you start to add fish. Even if you do not record it because you think it is done. And if you measure NO3 in the start and think that the cycle is done when you read some NO3 - you will do a mistake - In 99 % of the case´s – readable NO3 in the first week (with a clean start and RoDi water) – is in reality NO2. NO2 in the water will give false readings in all NO3 test I know of (hobby tests).

In the “old days” I did. But it is cruel and pointless nowadays. I haven’t cycled with fish in probably a decade now. Besides the fact that most of the fish I actually want are too fragile for a cycle. I’d rather not bring a fish home to keep it in subpar water only to stress it out when I am “done with it”, by bagging it up and taking it back for round two for the fish.

Still I do not get it - where is the abnorm cruelity in my method - examples - thank you. To have a fish for a month or two - after that give it back or move it - is for me as crue as than I brought it home the first time, or when they take it up from the ocean, or when it was on a exportin facility, or than it was transported across the earth, or when it was unpacked at the whole saler, or when it was at the whole saler, or when it was transported to the LFS, or when it was unpacked at the LFS, or it was transported home to me and so on - I can´t see the huge cruelity when I move the fish once again if I look at the whole chain. Please - do not play the "cruel card" - show instead how the fish will suffer more from the cycling done my way than otherwise.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[PrimaryQwilfish]

Degree says I'm just a Biologist, but I've been studying coral biology and working in public aquariums long enough that I don't even go to most stores anymore. I'm more and more annoyed as I go and hear the misinformation, blatant lies or "hobby science" as I like to call it being spewed constantly.

I am and always have been one to establish a system with no fish, using ammonium chloride. It's a very outdated, and unnecessarily cruel method to use a fish to establish a system properly.

THANK YOU

 

[Lasse]

Still - definy the cruelty in my method to use a fish in the cycle method. No one have been able to do that yet. Nothing become true of only been repeating all the time. Instead of telling which degree I have or what I have been working with - I try to stay at facts and argue around that.

Once again - show me that it is a cruel method and I will change my mind. Show me how my method will harm aquatic organisms. Tips - start to do the math if how much N from the food I recomend to feed with for the first 3 weeks will turns to NH3 in a 5 gallon system and pH of 8.2.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[PrimaryQwilfish]

Absolutely. Skip-cycling has also been the commonly used term for adding a bottled bacteria product which is what the OP was recommended to do. What the LFS employee advised the OP to do was not problematic which was my point. There is nothing wrong

For some reason, the term skip cycling has fallen out of common use. At least I don't see it used very much. Instead, it is common to talk about people using a bottled bacteria product or live rock to seed a tank and start the cycling process.
What we are doing is skip cycling and then verifying with ammonia or shrimp. We are also giving time for the bacteria count to increase which is a good thing.

So to the point of the OP.

What was recommended was to skip cycle using a fish and bottled bacteria product. I don't believe that to be cruel. It isn't my preferred method and not what I would recommend but that is about all I can say about it.

My problem with the bottled bacteria products is I have found it doesnt work well enough, and you don't know how much live bacteria is in it or will survive. I have tried bottled bacteria in other systems and found that while ammonia was reduced as I dosed, it was still measurable using a kit, and in some cases rose up over time as I assume bacteria died. Maybe I used the wrong bottle or brand, but I just dont think putting my trust in one bottle is a risk I agree with using as our sole cycling method.

Furthermore, I dont think it is fair for a store to try and almost insult me for not wanting to buy the product or a fish that day. I have a right to cycle the way I want. I don't want to cause any stress to a fish, if I have a pet, I believe I am responsible for providing the best care I can, so I'd rather be patient and be confident in my system working rather than take a chance.

From the literature I have read, marine fish are generally more sensitive to ammonia than FW so that doubly pushes me to be careful. There are lots of ways to speed up the cycle, and I think the bottles are good for that, but I dont think a bottle and a fish in a brand new tank day one is the right way to go. There are gray areas obviously, like using previously cycled rock or a one inch fish in a 200 gallon tank, but ultimately we should be putting the rights of the living creatures in our care before our impatience.

 

[Lasse]

@PrimaryQwilfish Heve you even read my article 15 steps to start.....? Show with these 15 steps what it is a cruel method - please. It is lesser cruel than take wild fish and put he/she in a glass tank. Will you call my method a method of impatience?

Do you even know the toxity of ammonia, is both ammonia ion and ammonia gas toxic? If not - what decide which species that are present in a given moment. It is not true that salt water species in general are more sensitive compared with fresh water species. There is other factors that make the NH3/NH4 complex more toxic in saltwater while the highly toxic intermedient NO2 (in fresh water) is non toxic in salt water.

When you say that you could still read NH3/NH4 concentration in your try - I´m rather sure you read around 0.2 ppm. In my experience - this the amount many hobby NH3/NH4 test show - even if yhe right result is zero. The bacteria products that only contain nitrifying bacteria works and you do not need to worry if they are living or not. If they not get optimal environment - they get inactivated - and wake up than they get food and oxygen.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[PrimaryQwilfish]

Can you really treat a fish in a inhumane way

To start a new aquarium the way I do - you will not get any measurable free NH3 at all – no way it can harm a fish. The fish I use is not a test pilot – it is my NH3/NH4 producer in order to start the nitrification cycle. With this method – if you follow the sparse feeding schedule and add bacteria in some or another form during the first three weeks – it is very easy way to establish the nitrification cycle.

Sincerely Lasse

Yes, you can. Fish express and feel pain, and there is a reason university ethics centers make you write protocol and ensure their comfort. Read work by the American Fisheries Society and guidelines on how they define ethical care of fish.

 

[PrimaryQwilfish]

@PrimaryQwilfish Heve you even read my article 15 steps to start.....? Show with these 15 steps what it is a cruel method - please. It is lesser cruel than take wild fish and put he/she in a glass tank. Will you call my method a method of impatience?

Do you even know the toxity of ammonia, is both ammonia ion and ammonia gas toxic? If not - what decide which species that are present in a given moment. It is not true that salt water species in general are more sensitive compared with fresh water species. There is other factors that make the NH3/NH4 complex more toxic in saltwater while the highly toxic intermedient NO2 (in fresh water) is non toxic in salt water.

When you say that you could still read NH3/NH4 concentration in your try - I´m rather sure you read around 0.2 ppm. In my experience - this the amount many hobby NH3/NH4 test show - even if yhe right result is zero. The bacteria products that only contain nitrifying bacteria works and you do not need to worry if they are living or not. If they not get optimal environment - they get inactivated - and wake up than they get food and oxygen.

Sincerely Lasse

No, I have not yet. I am just now catching up on 6 pages of posts since I last had an opportunity to read this. The post died and suddenly revived while I've been gone for work. When I am back home later next week and have access to decent wifi, I'll be glad to share sources and read over your step system.

 

[Lasse]

Yes, you can. Fish express and feel pain, and there is a reason university ethics centers make you write protocol and ensure their comfort. Read work by the American Fisheries Society and guidelines on how they define ethical care of fish.

you miss the joke in humane


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Brew12]

My problem with the bottled bacteria products is I have found it doesnt work well enough, and you don't know how much live bacteria is in it or will survive. I have tried bottled bacteria in other systems and found that while ammonia was reduced as I dosed, it was still measurable using a kit, and in some cases rose up over time as I assume bacteria died. Maybe I used the wrong bottle or brand, but I just dont think putting my trust in one bottle is a risk I agree with using as our sole cycling method.

I use Biospira to set up QT systems. I've done it 10+ times without an issue. But, I do agree with you in that I test it by adding pure ammonia to verify the product works prior to adding fish. But, just because it wont digest 2ppm ammonia in 24 hours doesn't mean that it won't support a lightly fed fish without ammonia exposure. I'd have to go back and look at some notes that I'll likely never find again but I did some rough math and figured a small fish in a 10g QT that is properly fed will generate under 0.15ppm ammonia per day. But, this isn't how we typically test it. I think it is because of the work of Dr Tim that the 2ppm number has become the recommended way to test if a tank is ready. That number isn't arbitrary but it is also unrelated to how much ammonia is produced by a fish.
I feel that what you are doing is a much better practice than what was recommended by your LFS. That doesn't mean what your LFS recommends is cruel.

Furthermore, I dont think it is fair for a store to try and almost insult me for not wanting to buy the product or a fish that day. I have a right to cycle the way I want. I don't want to cause any stress to a fish, if I have a pet, I believe I am responsible for providing the best care I can, so I'd rather be patient and be confident in my system working rather than take a chance.

Now this I agree with you 100%. Once you expressed that you wanted to be more confident that the tank was ready prior to adding fish they should have backed off and been supportive of that. I would much rather see the store recommend the path you took and only offering the bottled bacteria method to someone who was insistent in not waiting.

From the literature I have read, marine fish are generally more sensitive to ammonia than FW so that doubly pushes me to be careful.

I don't believe this is the case but I'd need to go back and refresh my memory. Ammonia is more toxic at higher pH's and marine tanks tend to have a higher pH so there is a higher risk from that sense. If you have a fish shipped overnight there will be ammonia in the water but the CO2 from the fish will lower the pH of the shipping water. Odds are the fish will be fine. If you aerate the water and raise the pH then the fish could be harmed. Maybe it's just semantics but I'm not enough of a fresh water person to know if some FW systems have higher pH's.
One nice thing is that nitrites aren't an issue for marine fish until they get to extremely high levels.

 

[Lasse]

0.15ppm ammonia

At pH 8 it corresponds to 0.0075 ppm toxic NH3 and that´s for a normal feed fish. In my method - the fish is feed very sparsly the first 3 weeks

Central American waters, the great Lakes of Easterna Africa - all have pH up to 8.5.

In bags of fishes that have been shiped 48 hours - NH4 concentration of more than 5 - 10 ppm can arise - but because of low pH - nema problema (pH in thes plastic bags can be as low as 6.6 (own measured values))

In a test trial I have measured 200 ppm NH4 in a fish farm (Rainbow trout) - pH 6.8

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lukas75]

For me - this is not a big problem - just brush the worst off and use the other organics as a P source in the start. If you doing a fishless cycling - I can´t see the problem either - you do not even need to clean them at all - you have your "rotten shrimp" for free - or do you believe that a shrimp bought from the grocery store not will realize some PO4 when it will be broken down by bacteria giving you the necessary ammonium (for cycling)? I can´t see any big differences between using dry rocks (with organics) or adding one or two shrimps an let the rotten (that´s organics too) The good thing with my method is during the first weeks – the ammonium production from the organics that will rotten is weak – the ammonium from the fish is the major contributor to the ammonium needed for starting the nitrification cycle. This small amount (and that´s the load will be slowly risen) will allow you to add CUC after a couple of days and when nutrients from the stones starts to leak out – you already have an established army of CUC grazing on the algae


For the book - to try to cycle without an ammonium source will create a new cycle when you start to add fish. Even if you do not record it because you think it is done. And if you measure NO3 in the start and think that the cycle is done when you read some NO3 - you will do a mistake - In 99 % of the case´s – readable NO3 in the first week (with a clean start and RoDi water) – is in reality NO2. NO2 in the water will give false readings in all NO3 test I know of (hobby tests).




Still I do not get it - where is the abnorm cruelity in my method - examples - thank you. To have a fish for a month or two - after that give it back or move it - is for me as crue as than I brought it home the first time, or when they take it up from the ocean, or when it was on a exportin facility, or than it was transported across the earth, or when it was unpacked at the whole saler, or when it was at the whole saler, or when it was transported to the LFS, or when it was unpacked at the LFS, or it was transported home to me and so on - I can´t see the huge cruelity when I move the fish once again if I look at the whole chain. Please - do not play the "cruel card" - show instead how the fish will suffer more from the cycling done my way than otherwise.

Sincerely Lasse

Fair enough. And yes I agree we stress them during the whole shipping process, but by using a “throw away” fish as I described promotes overcollection of that species for use in tanks to cycle them as their are always losses. That and I like to think of myself as the end of that chain, not another step.

As for the cruelty part. Ammonia burns the fish’s gills. Kinda of like placing someone in a chamber with a low concentration of chlorine.

Nitrite changes the hemoglobin in the fish’s blood stream so that it cannot carry oxygen causing the fish to respirate quickly. Imagine hyperventilating to get enough oxygen because someone placed you on the top of a high mountain peak with no prior conditioning.

In the worst cases death from these gases is a result of gradual asphyxiation for those that don’t survive the cycle.

Nitrate is the end goal which is relatively non-toxic to fish. This seems cruel to me especially since it is entirely unnecessary.

 

[Tamberav]

For me - this is not a big problem - just brush the worst off and use the other organics as a P source in the start. If you doing a fishless cycling - I can´t see the problem either - you do not even need to clean them at all - you have your "rotten shrimp" for free - or do you believe that a shrimp bought from the grocery store not will realize some PO4 when it will be broken down by bacteria giving you the necessary ammonium (for cycling)? I can´t see any big differences between using dry rocks (with organics) or adding one or two shrimps an let the rotten (that´s organics too) The good thing with my method is during the first weeks – the ammonium production from the organics that will rotten is weak – the ammonium from the fish is the major contributor to the ammonium needed for starting the nitrification cycle. This small amount (and that´s the load will be slowly risen) will allow you to add CUC after a couple of days and when nutrients from the stones starts to leak out – you already have an established army of CUC grazing on the algae


For the book - to try to cycle without an ammonium source will create a new cycle when you start to add fish. Even if you do not record it because you think it is done. And if you measure NO3 in the start and think that the cycle is done when you read some NO3 - you will do a mistake - In 99 % of the case´s – readable NO3 in the first week (with a clean start and RoDi water) – is in reality NO2. NO2 in the water will give false readings in all NO3 test I know of (hobby tests).




Still I do not get it - where is the abnorm cruelity in my method - examples - thank you. To have a fish for a month or two - after that give it back or move it - is for me as crue as than I brought it home the first time, or when they take it up from the ocean, or when it was on a exportin facility, or than it was transported across the earth, or when it was unpacked at the whole saler, or when it was at the whole saler, or when it was transported to the LFS, or when it was unpacked at the LFS, or it was transported home to me and so on - I can´t see the huge cruelity when I move the fish once again if I look at the whole chain. Please - do not play the "cruel card" - show instead how the fish will suffer more from the cycling done my way than otherwise.

Sincerely Lasse

My point is you say algae problems come from not cycling with a fish. I say that is wrong. I don't think cycling with a damsel cures algae.

People set up tanks so small they can't even house fish and still find success.

Personally I don't want to add a fish...then catch and return it. It's just an extra step to me. It may or may not be cruel but I do find it unnecessary.

 

[Brew12]

As for the cruelty part. Ammonia burns the fish’s gills. Kinda of like placing someone in a chamber with a low concentration of chlorine.

Except that by using bottled bacteria and/or live rock you should never get enough ammonia built up to burn the fish's gills.

Nitrite changes the hemoglobin in the fish’s blood stream so that it cannot carry oxygen causing the fish to respirate quickly. Imagine hyperventilating to get enough oxygen because someone placed you on the top of a high mountain peak with no prior conditioning.

Nitrite isn't an issue in a reef tank. The chlorine in the water blocks it from being absorbed by the fish.

 

[Lukas75]

Except that by using bottled bacteria and/or live rock you should never get enough ammonia built up to burn the fish's gills.


Nitrite isn't an issue in a reef tank. The chlorine in the water blocks it from being absorbed by the fish.

Than you, you made me research something, I did not know that nitrite was less toxic in saltwater. It is less toxic, but not non-toxic and according to the linked article (note who wrote it) it can still result in stress in elevated levels. As for "shouldn't see ammonia" I have seen ammonia spikes, rather significant ones while cycling with bacterial additives and live rock. I still prefer to play it safe and not take unnecessary chances. I have no problems with taking my time and making 99.9% certain there won't be any nitrification cycle issues.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.php

 

[Brew12]

Than you, you made me research something, I did not know that nitrite was less toxic in saltwater. It is less toxic, but not non-toxic and according to the linked article (note who wrote it) it can still result in stress in elevated levels. As for "shouldn't see ammonia" I have seen ammonia spikes, rather significant ones while cycling with bacterial additives and live rock. I still prefer to play it safe and not take unnecessary chances. I have no problems with taking my time and making 99.9% certain there won't be any nitrification cycle issues.

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.php

I can't say I've seen ammonia spikes the in the very few times I've had to set up a QT using Biospira but I agree it is possible and happens regularly. This is why I prefer to play it safe also. I am much less concerned about using a quality source of live rock. To me, a quality source isn't sitting in a tub in a LFS with circulating water. It needs to be tied into their fish system imo. Even then, I would still test with with pure ammonia but I don't consider it cruel not to.
If you want to see more, this is a great paper on the study of nitrites.