Definition Of A 'mature Tank'.

[littlegreentiger]

Quite often I read certain fishes (or other inhabitants) like a "mature" tank, but what is a "mature" tank? Should a tank be given 2-4 months to settle before adding something like Khuli's or 4-6 months or 6-8 months etcetera?

Cheers

 

[coldcazzie]

A mature filter is one that has a robust colony of ammonia and nitrite consuming bacteria in it which are able to process the organic wastes of a particular number of fish.

However, a mature tank (ie, a tank that has been set up for a long time) has many different biological processes going on inside it, only a few of which we actually really know about. It is not just the nitrogen cycle, but other important processes as well.

Some people deny that a mature tank actually exists - only the filter can be matured, and putting a matured filter into a new tank with brand new water will still result in a mature tank, but I disagree. I think that several months/years of that little ecosystem doing it's thing, with infinite processes and nuances which I can't possibly comprehend (and don't really want to - some things are better as mysteries!) is definitely not the same as tap water that you dechlorinated 10 minutes ago, and if the fish prefer the former over the latter then I think it's only fair that we go with that! (Personal opinion of course - you can do what you want! )

 

[StandbySetting]

Yeah I agree with what Cold Cazzie says.

I'd just like to add that the reason that filter colonies become more robust is that over time they can adapt to certain environmental implications which may damage them, such as chlorine for example.

 

[Bignose]

Yeah I agree with what Cold Cazzie says.

I'd just like to add that the reason that filter colonies become more robust is that over time they can adapt to certain environmental implications which may damage them, such as chlorine for example.

It's not so much that they 'adapt' to chlorine, but it is that the amount of chlorine put into the water is picked to kill off the nominal numbers of bacteria that may have developed. The amount of chlorine is not designed to kill off an entire colony of bacteria living and thriving off of a constant nutrient source. I.e. the amount of chlorine put into the water may kill 5% of the colony, but that wouldn't even register as a blip in most of our tanks because new bacteria would just grow to replace those killed.

In my mind, a mature tank is one with a healthy biofilm. This is the biological coating that eventually covers most every surface in the tank, and is very rich in its diversity of life forms. You will get bacteria that break down wood, you get bacteria that break down solid waste, you will get small amount of algae, fungi, and even molds growing in this biofilm. Some fish will even consume this biofilm like oto- catfish, and they often have a wealth of microoganisms for fry to consume.

In addition to the above, a healthy biofilm tends to make the tank more adaptable to stresses. If the filter breaks, there is plenty of bacteria in the biofilm to help process ammonia. If a heater goes out, that's not terrible because in the rich diversity of the biofilm, there are bacteria that work a little better at cooler temperatures and step up. Etc. These all end up making your tank more like real bodies of water and more stable. This is what is meant by a mature tank. It takes about 6 months or so for a good healthy biofilm to develop from scratch.

 

[drobbyb]

I tend to agree with Bignose. I know that the nitrifying bacteria are the main features in keeping your tank nontoxic for fish, however there are many microorganisms that develop in a healthy aquarium that breakdown any organic matter. But I have seen with my own eyes a 55 gallon tank of African cichlids that hasn't had a running filter or a water change in 14 months, yet the owner has experienced no losses. In fact, he has successfully raised fry. This tank is overstocked with only a single airstone hanging about 3 inches into the water. Where is all the ammonia/nitrite getting processed? I understand that an airstone can drive off ammonia (very little), provide circulation, and disturb the surface of the water for gas exchange. But if the bacteria only exist in quantity in a running filter and are pretty much the exclusive life support, then it must be a miracle.

I have also seen a mature filter transferred to a new tank only to have the fish die off due to ammonia (perhaps nitrite too) spikes (green water is always an indication of the presence of ammonia, and this tank looked like pea soup). Yes I know there are many variables here, but the owner is experienced and has been in the hobby for many years. I'm sure he knew what he was doing.

I have observed these tanks that seem to defy our understanding of the processes involved, and I'm not the only person on this forum that has observed this also. How can this be?

 

[drobbyb]

The fish tank described is a horrible example of how to keep fish. That tank WILL crash, I guarantee it. No water changes and no filtration will lead to a crashed tank. 14 months of living and even some breeding using some of the hardiest fish in the world is not proof that it is a good way to keep fish.

I didn't say it was a good way to keep fish. In fact every time I visit, I try to explain the proper way to keep fish. But having a shallow well skews his view on the whole water change idea.

Obviously if there is no filter there is no way for the bacteria to grow in it. In a tank with a filter the bacteria will be primarily (not only) in the filter because the flow is the highest there. This provides oxygen and food better than any other location in the tank. This doesn't mean the rest of the tank is sterile, obviously. What it means is that if you have enough filtration effectively all the bacteria will be there, not elsewhere. If this wasn't true than you could never move a setup by moving only the filters and livestock all at once. Filter or not the bacteria will grow where conditions are best. Without a filter this may mean anywhere there is higher flow. Without any difference in flow it will be spread out a lot more than any other tank.

This statement is common sense.

Greenwater does not indicate ammonia. Like other algaes it needs nitrate and phosphate (as well as light and the other essentials). In fact greenwater is a very healthy thing to have for fish like goldfish and koi, they can actually eat it. It does not require ammonia at all.

I disagree with most of that.

Roger Miller correctly stated

> Photosynthesis does not consume nitrogen.

"Moontanman", asked:

> Your proof of that would be located where?

He added further:

> Stephen Spotte in his book "Sea Water Aquariums' states that all plants
use
> nitrogen in some form...

Your reference to Spotte is correct, plants do use nitrogen in some form for
the synthesis of amino acids. But Roger's statement was quite specific - and
involved PHOTOSYNTHESIS alone. Nitrogen is not involved directly in the
photosynthetic reaction, which is really just how green plants are able to
convert the energy inherent in light photons and store it in chemical form
(simple sugars):

light
CO2 + 2 H2O ------------> (CH2O) + O2 + H2O
green plants

Moon continues:

> Nitrogen is assimilated during photosynthesis to make
> the amino acids inside cells.

That should be "during growth", not "during photosynthesis"

> Plants get theirs [nitrogen] by assimilating those compounds
> from their environment and using them by way of photo synthesis
> to make new body tissues.

All that plants get from photosynthesis is simple sugar(s). [I don't mean to
belittle the process, it is a miracle.] They get everything else from the
synthesis of other, more complex compounds, using the sugar(s) manufactured
during photosynthesis as the energy source. Nitrogen is involved in some of
those reactions, but they are not photosynthesis.

Moon concludes with:

> Plants make their tissue by photosynthesis,
> I don't know how to be more basic than that.

Plants make simple sugars by photosynthesis (see above...). They make
everything else by other reactions with other names.

For reference, take your pick of either of the following:

ESG Biology Hypertextbook, developed at MIT -
http/esg-www.mit.edu:8001/esgbio/ps/psdir.html

Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on Photosynthesis -
http/www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,115112+1+108553,00.html

Both should prove authoritative enough to resolve your doubts.

James Purchase
Toronto

Nitrogen is nitrogen whether it be ammonia, or nitrate. Plants (and algae) are indiscriminate when it comes to this. When plants grow they need nitrogen to create amino acids. It just so happens that ammonia is present in the highest concentrations in a new setup.

I may have misspoken a little about green water. I said that it is always an indication of ammonia. What I should have said is that an ammonia spike with bright lighting or too long of a photo period can trigger a green water outbreak, even a spike small enough to not be detected on home liquid based test kits. As I stated above, I commonly see it in new setups with high levels of ammonia. Usually once the ammonia is being processed primarily by the nitrifying bacteria the green water subsides on it's own.

Through the power of deductive reasoning this tells me that the ammonia plays a major part in this process.

 

[roadmaster]

Just because you say it is so doesn't make it true. Oxygen and CO2 diffuse, VERY quickly. If this wasn't true than protein skimmers wouldn't work. I have read multiple books that stated that the only aeration needed in a marine tank is provided by protein skimmers, which are nothing more than bubbles in water. Even just one air stone can create a lot of surface area, exactly the same as the surface area at the top of the tank. Oxygen and CO2 don't know if they are in the air, bubbles, the water, etc. They will diffuse. There is more than enough aeration created by the bubbles themselves to create significant aeration.

I am glad your own estimate supports your idea, imagine that.

The fish tank described is a horrible example of how to keep fish. That tank WILL crash, I guarantee it. No water changes and no filtration will lead to a crashed tank. 14 months of living and even some breeding using some of the hardiest fish in the world is not proof that it is a good way to keep fish.

Obviously if there is no filter there is no way for the bacteria to grow in it. In a tank with a filter the bacteria will be primarily (not only) in the filter because the flow is the highest there. This provides oxygen and food better than any other location in the tank. This doesn't mean the rest of the tank is sterile, obviously. What it means is that if you have enough filtration effectively all the bacteria will be there, not elsewhere. If this wasn't true than you could never move a setup by moving only the filters and livestock all at once. Filter or not the bacteria will grow where conditions are best. Without a filter this may mean anywhere there is higher flow. Without any difference in flow it will be spread out a lot more than any other tank.

Greenwater does not indicate ammonia. Like other algaes it needs nitrate and phosphate (as well as light and the other essentials). In fact greenwater is a very healthy thing to have for fish like goldfish and koi, they can actually eat it. It does not require ammonia at all.

It is possible to run a tank indefinately without a filter or water changes, many have been doing this for years with Walstad type natural planted tanks.
Many also dose their planted tanks via EI method with phosphates,nitrates, in relatively large amount's (daily)and yet they have no algae. Add NH3(ammonia) and light in excess and algae will come.
All the nitrifying bacteria are not found in the filter, I agree that most are found there but they are also found on all hard surfaces in the tank,
This is not news or speculation,(science).
One must be careful when making general statement's for there are many variables to consider in my humble opinion.

 

[roadmaster]

A mature filter is one that has a robust colony of ammonia and nitrite consuming bacteria in it which are able to process the organic wastes of a particular number of fish.

However, a mature tank (ie, a tank that has been set up for a long time) has many different biological processes going on inside it, only a few of which we actually really know about. It is not just the nitrogen cycle, but other important processes as well.

Some people deny that a mature tank actually exists - only the filter can be matured, and putting a matured filter into a new tank with brand new water will still result in a mature tank, but I disagree. I think that several months/years of that little ecosystem doing it's thing, with infinite processes and nuances which I can't possibly comprehend (and don't really want to - some things are better as mysteries!) is definitely not the same as tap water that you dechlorinated 10 minutes ago, and if the fish prefer the former over the latter then I think it's only fair that we go with that! (Personal opinion of course - you can do what you want! )

I agree with this response to original question posted in this thread.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Bignose (or anyone else for that matter),

Would you care to address this question I had from earlier?

Getting back on target with the nature of this thread... Is the "mature" nature of the tank related to the filter or is it related to ALL the parts? I asked this a while ago, but would moving a filter from a "mature" tank to a brand new tank mean that the new tank is now "mature as well, or will it take more time than that to get "mature"?

 

[Bignose]

Bignose (or anyone else for that matter),

Would you care to address this question I had from earlier?

Getting back on target with the nature of this thread... Is the "mature" nature of the tank related to the filter or is it related to ALL the parts? I asked this a while ago, but would moving a filter from a "mature" tank to a brand new tank mean that the new tank is now "mature as well, or will it take more time than that to get "mature"?

From what I'd consider truly mature, I'd say no. because I don't think a tank is really mature until a healthy biofilm has developed, and just swapping a filter doesn't grow biofilm. The filter swap will obviously help minimize -- hopefully even to zero -- the amount of ammonia and nitrites. But zero ammonia and nitrite is not enough to call a tank 'mature' in my opinion.

 

[coldcazzie]

Bignose (or anyone else for that matter),

Would you care to address this question I had from earlier?

Getting back on target with the nature of this thread... Is the "mature" nature of the tank related to the filter or is it related to ALL the parts? I asked this a while ago, but would moving a filter from a "mature" tank to a brand new tank mean that the new tank is now "mature as well, or will it take more time than that to get "mature"?

From what I'd consider truly mature, I'd say no. because I don't think a tank is really mature until a healthy biofilm has developed, and just swapping a filter doesn't grow biofilm. The filter swap will obviously help minimize -- hopefully even to zero -- the amount of ammonia and nitrites. But zero ammonia and nitrite is not enough to call a tank 'mature' in my opinion.

I agree. I don't think the filter is the be all and end all of a mature tank. Of course it helps. The nitrogen cycle is a key chemical process that occurs in a tank, as we know from the times when new members come on the forum and say "I've had my tank a week, I've got 15 fish and now they're all dying". From those situations we also know that it takes time for the bacteria that carry out the nitrogen cycle to grow and be robust enough to survive long term in the filter, whilst also taking care of the nitrogen cycle for the tank.
Is it not reasonable to presume that other similar bacteria, living in a relative similar environment (different area of the same tank) carrying out other similar processes (maybe not quite so important in the immediate beginning of the tank's life, but important nonetheless) will also take time to grow to a number where they can carry out that process to a determinable degree (maybe not determinable by us in our current understanding and with our current technology, but as has been clearly established by the discussion in the thread, technology and understand move on and what we might not understand now, we may well understand in 50 years)? I think it is, in terms of how some processes and understandings are capable of being extrapolated to other situations. I don't pretend to have a deep understanding of these things, but I do understand the basic principles of extrapolating the results of one thing to another similar situation, and I think that applies in this case. Just putting a mature filter in a tank is not enough to make it mature. Yes it will process ammonia > nitrite > nitrate, but it won't do anything else. And seeing as its those other things we're talking about, I think that's answered the question.

 

[drobbyb]

You all keep saying that the older research and science isn't valid, yet you all probably drive a car that uses an internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine was researched and invented in the late 1800's. Sure we have added a few things since we do have better understanding, but the basic concept is the same: a mixture of gasoline and air at the correct ratio is ignited by an electrical discharge which forces pistons to turn the crankshaft.

The science hasn't been superseded BECAUSE it is still valid. The same applies here. Do bubbles help to aerate the water? Sure because they disturb the surface of the water allowing better gas exchange, and also a little gets diffused into the water directly from the bubbles.

So, both are responsible for the effect created. Don't over complicate it. Debating over the semantics is quite frankly a waste of energy in this case.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

You all keep saying that the older research and science isn't valid, yet you all probably drive a car that uses an internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine was researched and invented in the late 1800's. Sure we have added a few things since we do have better understanding, but the basic concept is the same: a mixture of gasoline and air at the correct ratio is ignited by an electrical discharge which forces pistons to turn the crankshaft.

The science hasn't been superseded BECAUSE it is still valid. The same applies here. Do bubbles help to aerate the water? Sure because they disturb the surface of the water allowing better gas exchange, and also a little gets diffused into the water directly from the bubbles.

So, both are responsible for the effect created. Don't over complicate it. Debating over the semantics is quite frankly a waste of energy in this case.

I think you are overstating the number of people questioning the older research by saying "you all" by my count the number is no more than two.

 

[Bignose]

I have cut a lot of fishguy2727's and my posts from this thread, because they weren't really on topic and need to be discussed on their own. Please see http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/377186-a-rational-discussion-on-oxygen-transfer-from-an-airstone-bubble/

 

[Mowbz]

You all keep saying that the older research and science isn't valid, yet you all probably drive a car that uses an internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine was researched and invented in the late 1800's. Sure we have added a few things since we do have better understanding, but the basic concept is the same: a mixture of gasoline and air at the correct ratio is ignited by an electrical discharge which forces pistons to turn the crankshaft.

The science hasn't been superseded BECAUSE it is still valid. The same applies here. Do bubbles help to aerate the water? Sure because they disturb the surface of the water allowing better gas exchange, and also a little gets diffused into the water directly from the bubbles.

So, both are responsible for the effect created. Don't over complicate it. Debating over the semantics is quite frankly a waste of energy in this case.

I agree.

The oen thing i do see on this forum is that "old" science seems to be "irrelevant science".

What we learn doesnt supersede the previous, it supplements it. The fundamentals dont change, the details around them do.