Ammonia

Absolutely not you need pure ammonia not something that sounds similiar. If in the UK try Robert Dyas, Boots, Homebase.
 
ok so if i take a trip to boots today, it will have pure ammonia, can i do i fishless cycle with my real plants in the tank?
 
As you go along with your fishless cycle and seek help from the members here, though, its important to inform them of the level to which the tank is planted. A very heavily planted tank is a very different situation for cycling than one with a medium or fewer of live plants. Heavily planted tanks can take up so much of the ammonia that there will not be enough for the bacteria to develop.

~~waterdrop~~
 
My theory is that plants are best left out.... unless you plan to feed them, in which case it may mess up test readings.
 
Yes Rooster, its really hard to decide. Its such a mixed bag! Too many plants and you find yourself in a completely different type of cycle (often called the "Silent Cycle") and with any number of plants you sometimes find individual plant species that either have difficulty with the "bacteria optimized environment" of fishless cycling or at the least get somewhat choked with algae during the process.

On the other hand, "bare tank" fishless cycling (the times when no mature media is available) can be so slow that any possibility of adding a bit to the initial bacterial population is at least a hopeful thing. Maybe science would prove it completely wrong but I always feel like there is the possibility of a few more beginning beneficial bacteria coming in on the plant water or plant surfaces when you introduce live plants, nothing like mature media but possibly a little "inoculation!"

~~waterdrop~~
 
Growth rates of a planted tank are a more important factor than plant mass per se . A high growth tank (high light and CO2) with a plant mass at 50% of that of a slower tank without CO2 should see an N uptake from the ammonia at a rate up to x 10 (I see growth rates around x 10 in higher light and CO2) in my experience, due to a greatly accelerated need for N. This tank will still cycle because the plant mass will not be 100% effeicient at assimilating the available ammonia. The net result will be a reduced nitrifying bacteria colony, but a tank in which fish can be added very early on due to the effectiveness of the plants using up the ammonia.

The reduced bacteria colony then brings me on to the point made by Rooster. Why bother spending 6 - 8 weeks (or however long a cycle takes) nurturing a huge nitrifying bacteria colony, only for a large percentage of it to disappear once planted? Recommending planting after a cycle will get little consideration on a dedicated planted tank forum.

I suspect, Joinerlavin, that you are not adding a great number of plants and that they will not be growing particularly quickly. Put them in from the start and all will be fine with the cycling.

Where does the phrase "silent cycle" come from? :)

Dave.
 
Gosh Dave, I have no idea where the phrase "silent cycle" came from. I just saw it a lot in threads that were describing the type of cycle you refer to above, where more significant plant growth contributes to creating a "cycled" environment for the fish earlier than a bacteria-only environment can.

In my own mind the "silent cycle" tag made sense in that a "planted tank silent cycle" (if you will) would almost have more in common with a "fish-in" cycle in terms of the test results side of things. The bacteria would be receiving a steady but small supply of ammonia and the big test result signs we look for in non-planted fishless cycling, like the ammonia dropping in less than 24 hours in the first phase and then the "nitrite spike" in the second phase, would be less dramatic and measureable in a "planted tank fishless cycle" process.

By the way, the phrase was definately not a phrase I made up. It was something that seemed to be around in a lot of threads I was looking at back when the search engine worked.

~~waterdrop~~
 
Growth rates of a planted tank are a more important factor than plant mass per se . A high growth tank (high light and CO2) with a plant mass at 50% of that of a slower tank without CO2 should see an N uptake from the ammonia at a rate up to x 10 (I see growth rates around x 10 in higher light and CO2) in my experience, due to a greatly accelerated need for N. This tank will still cycle because the plant mass will not be 100% effeicient at assimilating the available ammonia. The net result will be a reduced nitrifying bacteria colony, but a tank in which fish can be added very early on due to the effectiveness of the plants using up the ammonia.

The reduced bacteria colony then brings me on to the point made by Rooster. Why bother spending 6 - 8 weeks (or however long a cycle takes) nurturing a huge nitrifying bacteria colony, only for a large percentage of it to disappear once planted? Recommending planting after a cycle will get little consideration on a dedicated planted tank forum.

I suspect, Joinerlavin, that you are not adding a great number of plants and that they will not be growing particularly quickly. Put them in from the start and all will be fine with the cycling.

Where does the phrase "silent cycle" come from? :)

Dave.



I am new to using plants and never done them before, i will onli be planting 3 or 4 small plants in the aquarium. I went to boots and found no ammonia and also went to b&q and they dont sell it either, will they sell it at my local fish store, "pier aquatics" in Wigan?
 
lol yes but i also said its for a fish tank, i went to the cleaning section in b&q and there was none there ither and they normally sell everything.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top