Paper For School

[acetennis2002]

Well we have to do a paper in my English class. The paper is a argumenitive reasurch paper. I have decided to do it on cycling a tank with fish or fishless (as an attempt to get my teacher into the hobby ). I am planning to argue the fishless side but i need a few arguments to disprove on the other side. Any reasons why you would cycle with fish rather than without?

 

[annka5]

...erm... personally, I think these are pretty weak, but:
Bacteria to break down the fish waste to ammonia are not encouraged by fishless cycling (these are present in high enough numbers pretty much immediately anyway)
Something to look at in the tank before you stock it - basically lack of patience
if you have a big enough tank and do it slowly enough, levels of toxins should be low enough not to kill them (high risk and big if though)
More hassle to buy ammonia and add it in the right proportions and test the water daily than it is to watch your fish swimming about (rubbish - way more hassle to do large water changes and watch your fish suffer/die from poisoning).
Told you they were lame reasons! Hopefully someone will come along with something better!

 

[Ginge]

Good idea. if you decide it becomes to hard you could do something about died fish???

 

[chishnfips]

I think cycling with fish is an old school method, you could maybe add that in somehow.....

another one might be its a natural way to develop amonia rather than buying amonia in a bottle. ( sayng that though you can start the cycle with anything that rots away like food so I am not sure about that one.

 

[acetennis2002]

the only accual reason i have seen for it would be that fact the you cant buy pure ammonia. You have to get ammonia cloride or ammonia hydroxide and they are both not so great for being in a tank that is a big reason for people who dont like to put chemicals into their tank

 

[Fella]

It could be argued that cycling with fish is cheaper, as you don't need to buy a test kit or ammonia.

 

[acetennis2002]

ah yes good reasons this is helping me out alot thankyou everyone for your help!!!!

 

[Bloo]

It could be argued that cycling with fish is cheaper, as you don't need to buy a test kit or ammonia.

Good thinking, but then you have to weigh it up against buying medicine for diseased fish - or replacing dead fish

 

[Fella]

It could be argued that cycling with fish is cheaper, as you don't need to buy a test kit or ammonia.

Good thinking, but then you have to weigh it up against buying medicine for diseased fish - or replacing dead fish

Well yeah, but plenty of people cycle with fish and "get away with it" so to speak.

 

[annka5]

Ammonia is only about £4 though....

 

[FBF]

begginers dont want to wait for a tank to cycle they want to put fish in asap.

pure lack of info would be the main reason why people do fish cycles.

last but not least. mny people just dont bother cycling anyway

 

[Jules H-T]

With fishless cycling there are risks that you could

(1) underestimate your dose generally and not have enough bacteria present when you introduce your fish,

(2) overestimate your final dose and drop your new fish into a ammonia poison bath,

(3) forget to dose at some point in the cycle for long enough that your bacteria die off and put you back to square one,

(4) your test kits aren't accurate and you kill fish adding them before the cycle is complete,

(5) you misread or contaminate your test kit and think the cycle is complete when it's not.

Basically fishless cycling there is a lot more room for human error, cycling with fish they take care of themselves.

Just playing devil's advocate!

 

[Bloo]

Ammonia is only about £4 though....

£1,99 even in London

It could be argued that cycling with fish is cheaper, as you don't need to buy a test kit or ammonia.

Good thinking, but then you have to weigh it up against buying medicine for diseased fish - or replacing dead fish

Well yeah, but plenty of people cycle with fish and "get away with it" so to speak.

It would indeed be interesting to do a poll and find out exactly how many people still have their original "cycling fish" a year down the line and were not subject to any illness in that period....

 

[Fella]

Ammonia is only about £4 though....

£1,99 even in London

It could be argued that cycling with fish is cheaper, as you don't need to buy a test kit or ammonia.

Good thinking, but then you have to weigh it up against buying medicine for diseased fish - or replacing dead fish

Well yeah, but plenty of people cycle with fish and "get away with it" so to speak.

It would indeed be interesting to do a poll and find out exactly how many people still have their original "cycling fish" a year down the line and were not subject to any illness in that period....

Agreed. I don't agree with fish cycling btw, just stating that it's cheaper!

 

[Spiceweasel69]

Well we have to do a paper in my English class. The paper is a argumenitive reasurch paper.

Spot the deliberate spelling error.

Spot the irony.



heh. just kiddin