Tannins

[FBF]

Just for future reference, based on past posts I've read, if Bignose disagrees with you, chances are it's because you're wrong

FBF, like Bignose said, the overwhelming majority of bacteria is in the gravel and filter media.... which means that doing large water changes isn't removing much of it. In a newer tank large water changes can indeed be dangerous, but they are perfectly fine in well established tanks such as the one we're talking about. Trust me on this one, I have 6 tanks ranging in size from 5 gallons to 80 that all get 40-50% water changes on a weekly basis, and I have never ever had a problem, even when adding a grotesque number of new fish all at once (one of my 10 gallons just got 4 new guys two weeks ago when I was switching some tank arrangements around)

ok gt some replying to do here.

water changes dont remove bacteria, if you read my post again you will see that my concern is over the ammonia you are removing. read my post again. the amount of bacteria is controlled by the amount of ammonia. remove the ammonia in you are dramatically reducing the bacteria at all three stages. this leaves you with a delicate filter so then forget to do a water change and you dont have enough bacteria to cope with the extra bio load. he presto a mini cycle. you may not notice it but your fish will. it will effect the fish dropping its immune system and then youve opend the door for hundreds of other illnesses, ich being the main concern in the home aquarium. please dont tell me you guys cannot grasp this? its simple

actualy its called "tannins"

and i would STRONGLY urge you NOT to make 50% water changes. its too much. your in discus territory there and run the risk of all kinds of bacterial problems especially where your tanks balance is concerned. my own advice would be to stick with your weekly 30% water changes and sit it out. or remove the bogwood

well, he doesnt have discus

Who's saying anything about ammonia and spikes and the nitrogen cycle
This is a stable tank - and as Bignose confirms, you can do pretty much anything to the water without any problems whatsoever. I've done several 100% changes (and gravel washes) when moving home - and never once experienced any spike, cycle, illness or death as a result.

Of course this is really not a good idea in a new / newly cycled tank, but seeing as I perform 50% on my planted tank on a weekly basis (as do many others) I see no reason why this can't be done in Bod's tank - especially on a short term basis - providing of course it's a mature and stable tank.

im not here to argue with you, im here to help someone with a problem, im telling that person the way it is. you cannot have a stable tank doing large water changes and thats a fact. ive already explained the reason why, if you know better than science then please teach us all YOUR facts

the fact that you correct the guy with the word 'tannis' gives your opinions no credibility as far as im concerned

bignose is probably the most knowledgeable person on this forum when it comes to science, so i dont think anybody can argue with him, unless he is obviously wrong or is trying to fool us (ive never seen him do either yet but it might be coming )

ok the discus remark is just a mistake on your part read it again.

no offence to bignose (have you owned any of the mormyrids BN?) im sure he is very knowledgeable but im sure only a fool would think of himself correct on everything. you've added nothing to this debate except your post count is raised

Shoot Synirr, Dorkhedeos, you two are gonna give me a swell head. The two of you catch many more threads than I usually do, and there have been many cases where I didn't need to input anything after the two of you posted. OK, love fest over.

I am going to guess that illumination = elimination, since the bacteria as far as I know are not photo-sensitive and will work just a well in the day as in the night.

Secondly, you can build up to a stable tank even with large water changes. And large water changes may really be needed in the beginning if the fish are going to suffer or even die.

Let me illustrate with an example. Let's begin with enough fish in a tank to increase the ammonia 4 ppm per day. Only enough bacteria to process 0.1 ppm per day to start. In general, at most room temperatures bacteria will double every day, so on day 2, the bacteria can process 0.2 ppm, and so on.

Day 1: 4.0 - 0.1 = 3.9 ppm ammonia in the tank At this point, those fish are in trouble, maybe dead. Let's say this tank owner gets on the forums and is told to do a large water change. 50% off is 1.95 ppm
Day 2: 1.95 + 4.0 - 0.2 = 5.75. 50% = 2.8
and so on
Day 3: 6.5 after change: 3.2
Day 4: 6.4 after change: 3.2
Day 5: 5.6 after: 2.8
Day 6: 3.6 after: 1.8
Day 7: 0 since the bacteria colony has grown large enough to consume all the ammonia. With the changes, the tank still got cycled, and the maximum ammonia level the fish were exposed to was 6.5.

By comparison, if you didn't do water changes, the maximum ammonia level the fish would be exposed to would be 17.7 ppm.

Now, a few points. 1) I completely made those numbers up, probably the most critical number up there is that the ammonia can convert 0.1 ppm of ammonia on the first day. That is probably way off.

But 2) the point is that a tank can be cycled while doing large water changes.

3) Here's the biggest point: the bacteria are only going to consume as much as they can. Any extra ammonia left over will just be sitting in the water -- and that extra ammonia will just be harming the fish. You can keep the cycling process going while keeping the level of ammonia at a safe enough level. If you will aim to keep the ammonia level below 1.0 ppm, it may take larger or more frequent changes, but the bacteria will be constantly growing and it will eventually cycle so long as there is a food source, and I don't think you can stop your fish from excreting waste.

Eventually the bacteria colony will grow to the point at which the bacteria are converting exactly as much ammonia per day as the fish are excreting. Now, if you add a fish, like you said, the fish will produce additional ammonia. The colony will have to catch up. This may be quick like in the case of adding 3 fish to a tank full of 30, which may only take a few hours and the fishkeeper probably wouldn't even notice it. Or it may cause a few-day mini cycle like in the case of adding 3 fish to a tank with only 3 others. But, there will always be a little lag -- whether or not you did large water changes in the past or not. Basically, the entire point here is that the bacteria don't know or don't care about the past, they only care about the present. (Big science word of the day alert here: a process that is independent of the past and only depends upon the present is also known as 'Markovian' use it to impress your friends.)

Lastly, with the prevalence of HOB filters, especially the ones with the Bio-wheels, you know exactly where the bacteria are. They are in the bio-wheel. So long as the bio-wheel doesn't get ruined, get exposed to unchlorinated water, get dried out, get lost, the water in the tank practically doesn't matter.

Skipping a water change shouldn't change the levels of ammonia either. Again, the production and elimination are in balance. Skipping a water change will end up with a tank with a higher concentration of nitrates, but not ammonia. Again, the bacteria do not care about the history of water changes, only the present. And that's basic cycling science.

well while i agree with most of that in part. i feel many of the figures are at best a hypothesis. am i wrong?

my point is that large water changes lower the ammonia levels which lower your bacteria levels smaller water changes on a weekly basis are in fact better and as we all know once a tank is cycled you are primarily removing water to keep nitrates to a safe level for the fish, not ammonia. discus owners are the perfect example, they carry out massive and often water changes, they have to have mint water conditions. but, there is a downside to having to do this. any lapse in water maintenance can be very costly. one poster above has eve admitted to doing 100% water changes and another 80%!!!! even if they havent seen any problems with this i certainly wouldnt be shouting about it on a public forum for all to see.

your theory leaves the floor open to anyone to carry out 100% water changes on a weekly level are you seriously suggesting this is ok?

 

[Tolak]

We all know once a tank is cycled you are primarily removing water to keep nitrates to a safe level for the fish, not ammonia. In a cycled tank, there should be no ammo present with commercially available tests. I'm sure if you got a test sensitive enough, you will find some tiny bit of ammonia, as what the fish eliminates doesn't hit your bio filtration instantly.

The nitrobacters & nitrosomas in your bio filtration won't starve to death if you take this almost immeasureable amount of ammonia out. Your nitrifying bacteria go dormant for a short time, then get back to doing what they do best. If they couldn't live without ammonia for a short time, you couldn't turn off any filters when doing water changes, the nitrifying bacteria would be dead. They don't need a non-stop constant supply of food, most living things don't.

Fish that are fed less produce less waste, fed more they produce more waste. When you go on vacation for 2 weeks, http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=129474 post #13, and don't feed your fish for 2 weeks, they are producing less waste, especially that second week. You get back all tanned & refreshed, start to feed the fish, they produce more waste. It's like that with all living things. Don't believe it? Don't eat for 2 days, then eat a double steak burrito, large fry & chocolate shake. Those nitrifying bacteria catch up quick.

As far as skipping a water change with my delicate bio filtration after doing 80% weekly, I've skipped them, anyone keeping fish for any amount of time does on occasion, life happens. People come before fish, tanks didn't get water changes for 2 1/2 weeks after Christmas. No aquatic casualties, glad I didn't have any spawns hatching & growing at the time.

If you have been involved in aquatics for any amount of time you know that what works for some aquarists doesn't work for others. There are too many variables involved, especially with a multi-national forum such as this. You may have problems doing larger water changes due to your water supply, the filtration, water conditioners, the list is nearly endless. Don't assume your conditions apply to the rest of the world. A smart aquarist would try to figure out why others can do something when he or she can't.

 

[Dorkhedeos]

Shoot Synirr, Dorkhedeos, you two are gonna give me a swell head. The two of you catch many more threads than I usually do, and there have been many cases where I didn't need to input anything after the two of you posted. OK, love fest over.

well, i just have too much time on my hands

ok the discus remark is just a mistake on your part read it again.

no offence to bignose (have you owned any of the mormyrids BN?) im sure he is very knowledgeable but im sure only a fool would think of himself correct on everything. you've added nothing to this debate except your post count is raised

i still dont get the discus territory stuff. what does this have anything to do with discus? i know i havent added anything useful to this. the reason is that i dont know anything about cycling because i never had to(i know ima get bashed for this). im like a caveman fishkeeper, i dont have any test kits, never cycled, and my fish are still healthy. im just on this thread to back up bignose. and about posts, i dont even care about them anymore. delete 20 of my post counts and see if i care. posts dont mean anything. i go on here to help people and be helped. if it makes you happy, ill stop posting on this thread since you think im after posts.

 

[Bignose]

the amount of bacteria is controlled by the amount of ammonia.

This maybe the source of the error in this discussion. The amount of bacteria is not contolled by the amount of ammonia. The amount of bacteria is controlled by the rate of excretion of ammonia.

They may seem like the same thing, but they are not. The reason the bacterial colony's size is controlled by the rate of ammonia is because the conoly will continue to grow so long as there is food -- ammonia -- available. Therefore, the bacterial colony will continue to grow until the rate bacteria consume ammonia is the same as the rate ammionia is produced by the fish.

Case in point: You defininately have a bacteria colony, even though the ammonia readings in the tank are zero. By your logic, there should be no bacteria (no ammonia, right?). But, the ammonia is zero because the production and consumption rates are the same. Increase the ammonia production by adding a fish and the bacteria will increase their colony until their consumption rate is the same.

Note that there is nothing that really has to do with the actual concentration of ammonia that is in the water. If you do a 100% water change, and put the exact same fish back in the exact same tank, the ammonia production rate is still the same, and the bacteria consumption rate is still the same, assuming you did not disturb the colony. That's why utmost care should be taken so that the colony is not disturbed.

But, in recap, it is the ammonia production rate, not the actual concentration of ammonia that determines the situation.

no offence to bignose (have you owned any of the mormyrids BN?) im sure he is very knowledgeable but im sure only a fool would think of himself correct on everything

Finally, I know you said no offense, but puh-lease. I, nor anyone else, said I know everything, and you can look back through all 300+ of my posts and note that I would never say anything at all like that. I'm sure I have stepped on a few toes in my days, but that has never been my intention. And, I'm really not sure how keeping any single individual species of fish would have to do with a discussion of the bacteria colonies.

p.s. Tolak, RE: "The nitrobacters & nitrosomas..." These are the species identified in a lot of older literature, newer research indicates that is it probably Nitrospira spp that is the main nitrite to nitrate oxidizer. I am pretty sure that different ammonia oxidizers are suspected as well, like Nitrosospira as well as -somonas. It seems to depend upon the ammonia concentration in this case, with one species being dominant at the beginning (high ammonia) an another taking over when the ammonia levels are low. See Hovanec et al., Applied and Environmental Biology, vol 64, p258-264, 1998 for info on the -spira. See Burell et al., Applied and Environmental Biology, vol 67, p5791-5800, 2001 for info on the -sospira.

Not coincidentally, this is why marlineland labs' bacteria-starter product is called bio-spira.

 

[Tolak]

You learn something new all the time! I'll say I stand corrected on terminology, if I could get past the first few pages of this; http/aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/67/12/5791

I do have to question amount vs rate of excretion. When doing a fishless cycle, you add enough ammonia to bring it to 4 ppm or so. Most people add it once a day when the filter has cycled, and at the same time the next day if the ammonia & nitrite test out as zero the tank is considered cycled. During this 24 hour period, the amount of ammonia varies from zero to 4ppm, not a very constant rate. Granted, this is not a mature tank, it's a newly cycled tank. Still, that 4ppm may be converted in 18 or 20 hours, leaving the nitrosomabacterspiras without food for a few hours. I guess the only way to really find out would be to do an ammonia test every hour for 24 hours, or for Bignose to give me another research paper reference.

BTW, thanks for the info Bignose, I'll be reading that for the next month & might have it half way figured out.

 

[Bignose]

Tolak (and I guess FBF too, since I apparently said I know everything), I don't understand much in those articles at all, besides that newer research has identified different species of bacteria that what is commonly reported in the older aquarium literature. One of those authors, Hovanec, is the guy the Marineland labs hired to invent Bio-Spira, and one of his claims is that the reason some of the other bacteria starters don't work is that they have the wrong bacteria in them. Those bacteria that are named in the older literature are important in waste-water treatment plants/areas and really act the same as the ones Hovanec et al. name. Basically, before bacterial DNA could be investigated, I don't think that too many people knew that these were very different species at all. I have noticed in the threads I read, though I have never used any of them, that Bio-Spira seems to be the only starter product that works, though even it is not consistent. It has lots to do with how its kept in the store, I think. I've seen lots of people recommend other products, but it is worth noting that Marineland labs has the U.S. patent on the -spira bacteria (yes, it is possible to have a patent on an organism) so, in the U.S. to make a product with the -spira bacteria in it would require you to pay royalties to Marine land.

Re: the fishless cycling technique. Basically, adding up to 4 ppm at once is trying to replicate 4ppm per day. It is just a discrete approximation to the continuous ammonia that would be released if there were fish in there. At the very beginning when there is a small colony, it obviously doesn't matter, but at the end the bursts and nothingness that will happen certainly doesn't replicate exactly what your tank will do. However, like you said, the bacteria will lie dormant for a time, and actually if they don't get fed they start to turn on each other. In the last days of my fishless cycles, I actually got in the habit of putting ammonia in about 3 or 4 times a day, to try and more closely approximate tank conditions. But, it probably isn't completely necessary. The great thing with having a full colony at the end of the fishless cycle is that the large number of bacteria can respond to changes quickly. That is, again if the number of bacteria double about every 24 hours, if the colony is only 90% of what is needed to handle a certain ammonia production rate, it will grow to 100% in just a few hours. So, even if some die off because you are feeding them in discrete chunks instead of continuously, they grow back pretty quick. Finally, following the instructions for most fishless cycles, you end up with far more bacteria than really needed anyway, so again, as I said above, the size of the colony is set up by the rates: the colony will grow or die off until the rate of ammonia consumption is exactly equal to the rate of ammonia production.

 

[FBF]

Tolak (and I guess FBF too, since I apparently said I know everything),

wow i really did offend you didnt i? someone else said something along those lines. get the bee out of your bonnet and read the rest of the posts.

 

[Bignose]

Tolak (and I guess FBF too, since I apparently said I know everything),

wow i really did offend you didnt i? someone else said something along those lines. get the bee out of your bonnet and read the rest of the posts.

Nope, just joking around and using your own words. I am actually much more curious to know if you read my posts and understand about how the rate of ammonia production determines how much bacteria there is, not the concentration of ammonia itself, so you can understand why I have posted all the info about how large water changes do not damange the bacterial colony above.

 

[BOD]

oooookkkk....lol, didnt expect that to happen....

neways..thanks

ps: im a girl....

 

[Trance2006]

I’ve got some African wood in my tank too, when I first got it I would get dark yellow, after taking it out drying it and then putting it back in with 25 % changes BI-Weekly for 3 weeks it went away. I have a slight yellow color that is hardly noticeable but it makes it looks more natural with the color.

 

[Synirr]

you may not notice it but your fish will. it will effect the fish dropping its immune system and then youve opend the door for hundreds of other illnesses, ich being the main concern in the home aquarium.

Yes, because my fish are sure to notice .1 ppm of ammonia long before my test kit does
Although I try to do water changes weekly, I can and do go two and even three weeks at a time without water changes during final exams and such on my cycled tanks. The good thing about having an accurate test kit is that I know I can do this without worrying. Personal experience speaks volumes.

As for ich being a concern, it most certainly is not in my aquariums. It is a myth that ich is ever present in the water column, and the only time you ever have to worry about ich is when introducing something into your tank that has potentially been in contact with a contaminated tank.

 

[ncjharris]

Psssst, BOD, while they are all debating - tannins.....

found another post earlier (can't find where now!) where one suggestion for removing tannins was to place said piece of wood in the toilet cistern (assuming there are no chemicals present).
Wood gets a regular rinse and all leechings are flushed away.......
Don't know if this is an option for you.

Now, back to the arguement......er, discusion!

 

[Teelie]

Psssst, BOD, while they are all debating - tannins.....

found another post earlier (can't find where now!) where one suggestion for removing tannins was to place said piece of wood in the toilet cistern (assuming there are no chemicals present).
Wood gets a regular rinse and all leechings are flushed away.......
Don't know if this is an option for you.

Now, back to the arguement......er, discusion!

That's a novel idea though I'd be concerned about the damage chlorine/chloramine and other tap water contaminates would have on the wood in such a place.

 

[ncjharris]

That's a novel idea though I'd be concerned about the damage chlorine/chloramine and other tap water contaminates would have on the wood in such a place.

Yeah - would it be any different to soaking it though?

 

[Teelie]

I use either RO or used tank water for mine though I suppose the chlorine would not be that damaging if other people do use just regular tap but there are other chemicals and things in a toilet cistern. There is also copper tubing and other metals in some cisterns and I'd definitely be concerned about contamination from that. There's also the "violence" of the water draining from the cistern as well which may damage the wood though I guess that largely depends on the wood and the person.