Cycling....the Frustration Mounts!

[mark4785]

One week ago today I started cycling my tank using amonia and the "add and wait" method in the beginners section. Today I tested the water again... the amonia is still off the rictor scale and there is ZERO nitrite. It is possible that I added a drop or two more amonia than needed. Is this normal? If yes, then that's fine, but I thought I'd see some nitrite by now. I feel like I'm getting no where! Also, I just noticed some tiny whitish (not sure of the color because they are so tiny) flecks floating in the water. Any idea what this could be? The tank is small (16 gal, bow front). Once again, thank you for any help. Lisa

It usually takes about one week or a little bit longer for the ammonia levels to drop and be converted into nitrite. You need to be adding a set amount of ammonia at all times, preferably by relying on a syringe for accuracy.

The ideal water conditions for ensuring the ammonia level goes to zero within 12/24 hours during your cycling involves a water temperature of 29 degrees C, a PH of 8.0 to 8.2 and accurate dosing.

edit: if you want to avoid algae/slime/solids developing in your cycling tank simply ensure you never turn the tank lights on as a huge cause of algae is light. If using the light is absolutely necessary, never turn it on for more than 10 minutes as any longer periods of time can initiate algal blooms.

 

[waterdrop]

Yes, agree with the others. This is a classic query for the first week of a fishless cycle. You dose the ammonia, a few days go by and it starts to seem nuts, what you are doing, lol. It just sits there and it seems like the only thing you can do is worry about exactly what the shade of green is.

The truth is that the two species of autotrophic bacteria you want to grow are very, very slow growers and everyone's tank presents different conditions and starting points. Many fishless cycles start to show some ammonia drop after a week but some take two weeks or we've even seen a couple take 3 weeks to even start. But it -will- happen, we've all seen it happen time and time again. That's what makes a forum helpful.

The other thing you gradually get the hang of is that really, when it comes right down to it, you don't really care about little changes because it will be such a powerful feeling when it finally just clears things to zero. You really just need the test kit to kind of tell you a sort of "high, medium, low" sort of crude look at a parameter.

And it's really good to either have an aquarium notebook (to my mind this is best because it just sits there and isn't lost with a hard drive crash) or some files where you do a log of all your test results day after day and a diary of every action you take on the tank. One extra nice thing that does for you during cycling is to give you a sense of accomplishment as it grows (sort of lifts your spirits when the darn bacteria are -still- being slow ) (and by the way, it's still always good to remember that it's a lot better for them to be slow in a simple tank of water than for them to be slow and the poisons to be damaging your supposedly "hardy" fish! There's no such thing as hardy fish, just fish that don't show the signs of gill and nerve damage outwardly.)

So just settle in, concentrate of knowing all the things to keep watch for and enjoy reading other threads and joining in the various conversations.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Jackiee]

I wasn't telling her to not do it a certain way, I just told her that I'd known some people that thought this way was more difficult than the method of adding stress zyme/adding gravel or other components from already established tanks/adding fish, that I didn't know much personally about the adding ammonia method, and gave her an opinion on a different method.. She doesn't have to take it, and obviously many of you are giving her other options and answers which is good and i'm sure she'll listen and keep on with the ammonia method since she's already started it and been doing it.

And adding hearty fish to the tank to do this method doesn't mean you're going to kill them/poison them as long as the levels are manageable when you first add them, and therefore continuing to keep them under manageable levels with water changes as the cycle finishes out, I was taught to start cycling tanks this way and was advised to by other people/friends/family/LFS's but evidently it's a method of long ago. So, my apologies.

I've done a few fishtanks with this method, keeping the fish. Not killing them..

 

[waterdrop]

Yes, I thought you were very up front making it clear what you had learned and experienced and stating that you hadn't had experience with the ammonia method. I thought it was a good posting.

In the late 50's and early 60's when I started, the techniques to make fish-in cycling safe weren't widely known or practiced and it took years before the passed-around information gradually helped that to happen. Now there have been decades of fish-in cycling and on top of that the retailing models have gradually incorporated the realization that difficulties in start-up are actually probably good for sales in the short term (medications, bottled goods, replacement fish etc.) and so there is a double preponderance of sorts that statistically pushes the newcomer in the direction of fish-in cycling.

In the 80's a small group of academic types who happened to be hobbyists and were sharing information on the new usenet software developed at Duke and UNC to take advantage of the arpanet and other computer connectivity (pre-internet days.) Several of them, including a fellow named Chris Cow I believe, started experimenting with the techniques that would become the ammonia fishless cycling methods we use today. It's been and still is something practiced by only a tiny percentage of all the hobbyists and beginners out there. As such, it's easy for newcomers to the hobby to be doubtful about something that sounds so weird when you first encounter it (it certainly did to me!)

The truth is though that it's become quite a solid technique during it's first 30 years or so and among experienced aquarists who have worked with it, there is little doubt about reliability and usefulness. The fundamental advantage, that fish are simply not ever given the chance to be exposed to even the small spikes and concentrations associated with preparing the biofilter, remains true. I think on a practical level, the much lower potential number of water changes involved is probably the other most popular aspect of the method.

It will no doubt take many more years for fishless cycling to make a dent in the large number of fish-in cycles that take place but hopefully there's a chance it will do so. Either that or still better things will come along.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Jackiee]

Yes, I thought you were very up front making it clear what you had learned and experienced and stating that you hadn't had experience with the ammonia method. I thought it was a good posting.

In the late 50's and early 60's when I started, the techniques to make fish-in cycling safe weren't widely known or practiced and it took years before the passed-around information gradually helped that to happen. Now there have been decades of fish-in cycling and on top of that the retailing models have gradually incorporated the realization that difficulties in start-up are actually probably good for sales in the short term (medications, bottled goods, replacement fish etc.) and so there is a double preponderance of sorts that statistically pushes the newcomer in the direction of fish-in cycling.

In the 80's a small group of academic types who happened to be hobbyists and were sharing information on the new usenet software developed at Duke and UNC to take advantage of the arpanet and other computer connectivity (pre-internet days.) Several of them, including a fellow named Chris Cow I believe, started experimenting with the techniques that would become the ammonia fishless cycling methods we use today. It's been and still is something practiced by only a tiny percentage of all the hobbyists and beginners out there. As such, it's easy for newcomers to the hobby to be doubtful about something that sounds so weird when you first encounter it (it certainly did to me!)

The truth is though that it's become quite a solid technique during it's first 30 years or so and among experienced aquarists who have worked with it, there is little doubt about reliability and usefulness. The fundamental advantage, that fish are simply not ever given the chance to be exposed to even the small spikes and concentrations associated with preparing the biofilter, remains true. I think on a practical level, the much lower potential number of water changes involved is probably the other most popular aspect of the method.

It will no doubt take many more years for fishless cycling to make a dent in the large number of fish-in cycles that take place but hopefully there's a chance it will do so. Either that or still better things will come along.

~~waterdrop~~

The very first fish aquarium I ever set up was set up with the help of a LFS owner that my mother knew, a man who strongly went by the fish-in cycle method and had good outcome with it, so I was taught that way, and have done it multiple times. I've heard of the adding ammonia way, but never really knew much about it, most people I know or came across always used the fish-in method. Not saying it's the BEST way by any means, but that it's widely known

 

[waterdrop]

Yes, I think that especially in the early years of the eighty's and nineties (and certainly still to some extent) there was a common feeling that somehow dosing a household ammonia cleaner was just not "natural!"... that somehow this source of ammonia just couldn't be the same as urine, solid waste, plant debris and excess fishfood which are the "normal" ammonia sources. But it turned out this wasn't the case and in fact the chemolithoautotrophic bacteria not only grow just fine on this source but that the source is so much more consistent and controllable that the process could be better watched, leading to the good situation we have now where the biofilter can be "qualified" and known to be fully working so that the first fish introduced will not be exposed to any poisons, as they necessarily are in any sort of fish-in method.

I think one of the subtle misunderstandings back in those days was that "natural" (meaning urine, fish waste etc. ammonia sources) was never really "natural" from the evolutionary fish's point of view because our confined tanks themselves are not natural in a major way.. ie. that what is truly natural for the fish were the millions of gallons of fresh stream or river water flowing past them hour by hour and always ensuring ammonia and nitrite free water for the gills! This was not often considered.

So both methods live within the artificial limitations we have created (meaning tanks) but it is my opinion that the fishless methology has moved one small step beyond the fish-in method.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Lisa67]

OMG! Day 10 and I finially have a nitrite reading!!! Not much of one, 0.25, but it's the first time it actually changed color so I'm thrilled. Amonia level is still around 4 though. Any estimations on how much longer it should take before I can actually put a fish in the tank?

 

[Skins]

OMG! Day 10 and I finially have a nitrite reading!!! Not much of one, 0.25, but it's the first time it actually changed color so I'm thrilled. Amonia level is still around 4 though. Any estimations on how much longer it should take before I can actually put a fish in the tank?

The fishless cycle on average from start to finish will take 4-6weeks BUT in some cases can take longer, fingers crossed you won't be one of these cases.

Keith.

 

[KittyKat]

OMG! Day 10 and I finially have a nitrite reading!!! Not much of one, 0.25, but it's the first time it actually changed color so I'm thrilled. Amonia level is still around 4 though. Any estimations on how much longer it should take before I can actually put a fish in the tank?

The fishless cycle on average from start to finish will take 4-6weeks BUT in some cases can take longer, fingers crossed you won't be one of these cases.

+1, after ammonia and nitrite read 0 ppm, keep testing for 7 days and if every day they both read 0 ppm 12 hours after you add ammonia, then you are ready to do a 100% water change and add the fish (in one day).

 

[waterdrop]

It's a very good sign that things are moving quickly during the first 10 days. I was looking back and couldn't see that you had added any mature media, though, so you do need to be prepared for the possibility that the "nitrite spike" phase that is coming up may take a pretty long time and will require patience. It is often at least twice as long as the period it took to get ammonia dropping to zero.

The next big milestone is at the end of the nitrite spike, when nitrite has dropped to zero in only 24 hours after ammonia was dosed. Then begins the phase where you watch for the nitrite going down faster and faster until it can clear to zero only 12 hours after ammonia was dosed. You always dose ammonia at your 24-hour mark, even if ammonia got to zero faster than that.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[FreedomFighter]

I've never done a fishless cycle.

I keep track of my stats and watch my fish's behaviour and perform daily water changes. Never lost a fish to it, never had an ill fish from it.

And for you lot who jump down the throat of those who do fish in cycles, you should never follow anything blindly. Ever heard of lemmings?

 

[Warehouse]

And for you lot who jump down the throat of those who do fish in cycles, you should never follow anything blindly. Ever heard of lemmings?

That's a bit harsh, in the short time I've been a member here I've yet to see anybody be judgemental.

Ever heard of trying something new?

 

[waterdrop]

Gosh, I hope that most of our members here in the beginners section would not write a post in such a way that the newcomer would feel we had jumped down their throat! I always try to think about what they've written and what their individual situation might be.

Many of us, including old-timers like me and oldman47 who have probably seen different decades of the hobby, have certainly had plenty of thoughts and exerience with doing good fish-in cycling technique. It can be done in a way that gives every appearance of working quite well.

It's just that if one is thoughtful and open, sometimes a new technique comes along that clearly has some advantages (less water changing during the cycle, no exposure of the fish, in the case of fishless cycling) and one decides to give it a try. Sometime when you've got a new tank to start you should give it a try FF, just for the sake of getting the feel of it!

~~waterdrop~~

 

[FreedomFighter]

Gosh, I hope that most of our members here in the beginners section would not write a post in such a way that the newcomer would feel we had jumped down their throat! I always try to think about what they've written and what their individual situation might be.

Many of us, including old-timers like me and oldman47 who have probably seen different decades of the hobby, have certainly had plenty of thoughts and exerience with doing good fish-in cycling technique. It can be done in a way that gives every appearance of working quite well.

It's just that if one is thoughtful and open, sometimes a new technique comes along that clearly has some advantages (less water changing during the cycle, no exposure of the fish, in the case of fishless cycling) and one decides to give it a try. Sometime when you've got a new tank to start you should give it a try FF, just for the sake of getting the feel of it!

~~waterdrop~~

What! Your advising someone to do a 'fish in cycle' - something which many members on here advise against. Doing it this way is not only unkind to fish as they die a slow death from the toxins in the water. It also means that once the filter is cycled from a few fish its therefore not going to cope when you decide to add another few fish and you'll have more toxins in your water. Adding chemicals will most likely not be benficial in the future, as you many find that you you'll need to keep using them, and besides they've not been proven to help. Think about it - a bottle of mature good bacteria is not going to contain healthy living stuff as theres nothing feeding it, it would of been sat on a LFS shop shelf for god knows how long.

Lisa67 someone with more knowlodge will be along shortly and explain it in alot more detail for you and will happily assist you with any problems.

Looks like jumping down the throat if you ask me.

Trying something new? I've been fishkeeping for only 2 years, i weighed up the options and a fish in cycle only seemed to be a problem if people were lazy.
I wasn't lazy, and as a result I have healthy happy fish which are readily breeding and are looking wonderful.

I get annoyed at fishless cycling being rammed down everyones throats, whilst I agree it's the best idea for newcomers, I also think it's offputting for someone to think they must have a tank for weeks with nothing in it whatsoever, when instead they could be told that they could do a fish-in cycle, but it'll be hard work.

 

[waterdrop]

OK, I see where you're coming from FF, you're concerned that a newcomer might not get the information that a fish-in cycle can be done well and that sometimes the members might sound a bit overly harsh when a fish-in direction is suggested over a fishless one.

I share that concern, it's always important that newcomers feel welcome and get the message that we're all here as hobbyists to share our experiences and learn together, trying not to be judgemental as we go about it. That's a good thing.

And I share your belief that "I agree it's [fishless cycling] the best idea for newcomers" which is why it doesn't surprise me that many of our members will often make a post in a newcomer's thread to promote fishless cycling. One thing that helps me when I read posts is to always make myself consider that people come in to it with all different moods, writing ability levels, levels of maturity and age and the like, so I just have to allow that sometimes a post may be "exciteable" but that the writer of that note may not mean to be harsh really.

I don't think of fishless vs. fish-in much in terms of lazy vs. not lazy. In my own case I have another hobby of liking to read scientific journals like Science and Nature (I work at a university and it's a bit within the working culture and very accessible, so I'm lucky in that way) and my interest has been that the folks (scientists) who study fish seem (in my opinion) to to have been telling us for quite some years that the initial symptoms of methemoglobin poisoning (the fish red blood cell destruction that goes on with nitrite presence) and of the gill tissue damage that starts to occur from elevated ammonia presence don't involve behavior changes in our fish (ie. the fish can be prancing around happily and we think they're fine, but the damage is beginning to occur.)

~~waterdrop~~