The Internet Hatred Of Fish-In Cycle?

[BethK]

i'm not big on the science of it all, so if you took half a sponge that is mature, put it in a new filter, with half a new sponge (for practice, say both sponges were equal sizes), you would still face a mini-cycle?

 

[Curiosity101]

i'm not big on the science of it all, so if you took half a sponge that is mature, put it in a new filter, with half a new sponge (for practice, say both sponges were equal sizes), you would still face a mini-cycle?

Sorry to the OP, hope you don't mind the above question and the fact I'm answering it.

It depends on a few things...

In theory if you remove half the media, you remove half the bacteria. In practice this doesn't always happen in such a nice ratio which is why the advice is to test your water after say.. 6-12 hours to check.

If you remove half the media and therefore half the bacs, then the pad you're holding can deal with half the bioload of the tank it came out of. So you should see no mini cycle if you moved it to a tank with half or less bioload. And equally would be unlikely to see any mini cycle (or a spike above 0 past the 12-24hour mark) if you put it into a tank of equal bioload.

Bacteria multiply exponentially, ie. they double each time when resources are available. 1 becomes 2... 2 becomes 4 etc etc.
So if you remove half of them, they only need to replicate once and they're back to full capacity. Can't remember what the replication time is for our ammonia and nitrogen bacs, but I vaguely remember them being some of the slower bacteria when it comes to replication.

However in short the cycle goes... Remove half the bacs --> ammonia creeps up straight away --> trace levels start the bacteria multiplying --> bacteria reach the same number as there were before the 50% removal --> There is excess ammonia that built up in the time it took for them to multiply (this'll normally still be a very low level around 0.25ish) --> bacteria continue to multiply whilst there are excess nutrients --> all additional nutrients are used up and the bacteria are using nutriets faster than they're being produced --> some bacteria die --> the bacteria colony size slowly reaches equilibrium with the amount of waste the fish are producing.
There will then be a similar pattern for the nitrites that are created out of the above process.

The time it takes for them to reach an equilibrium should be less than 24 hours, and I personally would expect it to be fine within 12 hours going by myself and others experiences.

In practice you probably don't take 50% of the bacterial colony (and even less likely you take 50% of the ammonia bacs and 50% of the nitrite bacs), but the point is that even if you do take more/less, because the colonies double in size every replication you are unlikely to ever see any significant spike. And certainly unlikely to see a mini cycle (ie. it lasts quite a few days)

And now if you're wondering why cycling takes so long in the first place... well that's because when the first bacs set up home on our filter media, they're probably in single figures... and the liklihood is that we have 7 figures worth of ammonia and nitrogren bacs at any one point in our tank (although I'm basing that on work I've done with estimating colony sizes in labs at school/uni... not actual figures)

Hope that helps anyone who's interested.

 

[BethK]

good post

thankyou

 

[AlanTh]

A 100 litre tank - three inches of gravel (UGF) - two good powerhead pumps - fish in cycle works well. Obviously you add fish gradually. But not as slowly as recommended. This filtration will deal with most issues. You can even overstock.

The tank will mature far faster than using small internal canister filters - they are small filters trying to do a heavy load. I have no problems with large external filters.

Why buy one powerhead to filter the tank when two will do the job twice as good? You can even add external canisters if you want really squeeky clean water - I did that when I kept Malawi Chichlids.

I had the best water in Stoke on Trent

 

[awilson360]

A 100 litre tank - three inches of gravel (UGF) - two good powerhead pumps - fish in cycle works well. Obviously you add fish gradually. But not as slowly as recommended. This filtration will deal with most issues. You can even overstock.

The tank will mature far faster than using small internal canister filters - they are small filters trying to do a heavy load. I have no problems with large external filters.

Why buy one powerhead to filter the tank when two will do the job twice as good? You can even add external canisters if you want really squeeky clean water - I did that when I kept Malawi Chichlids.

I had the best water in Stoke on Trent

Hmmm surely removing 50% of the media from a filter will also reduce the available surface area by 50%, meaning that for the bacteria to multiply it will have to become even more densely spread across the remaining filter media? Surely this is restrictive and bacteria will be competing against other bacteria in the local area for nutrients (i.e. Ammonia and Nitrite). That's just a thought.

AW

 

[Curiosity101]

Normally when you remove 50% you replace it with fresh.

But for the record whilstever the flow through the filter is good then it isn't likely to be a problem. Ammonia and nitrites aren't static, they're in the water. The reason bacteria congregate in the filter isn't because we say so...

It's because the three things they need are:
Good O2 supply
Good nutrient supply
A solid surface to colonise on. I'm pretty sure the bacs we're talking about produce a protective biofilm... do they don't live seperately anways, they do live as a 'mass'

Anyways, point is those three things are covered by our filters perfectly because of the continuous through flow of water.

AlanTh - Would you please stop flaming internal power filters... if you spend some time looking around the boards you'll see the evidence yourself that prooves you're wrong. People accept that you wish to keep to older technology such as under gravel filters. But you don't need an undergravel filter or massive external to give you good water. You're very much in the past with your beliefs about fish keeping, I really think you'd find it enjoyable to read up on current techniques, not just because 'we say so' but to see that the reason we say it is for good reason... ie. it works!

UGF, Box Filters, Sponge Filters, Internal Power Filters, External Canister filters ALL work. And the sponge, box and UGF can all be powered by air pump or power head. So long as you have the right filter for your set-up, ie. large enough tank turnover and large enough media capacity for the stock you want then you will have no problems, regardless of which one you choose.

And no one with a cycled tank has 'better' water than anyone else. If you mean your water was visibly clearer? Then I would expect the other tanks you were looking at had issues...

Seriously... have a look around these forums at the 100's of people with internal power filters and the such like... particularly in the tank of the month competition. And then come back and say that internal power filters are rubbish.

 

[drobbyb]

Both methods are effective, there's no doubt about it. As for which is better, that should be determined by your set of circumstances. If you work a lot and don't have the time to do the sometimes twice daily water changes of a fish in cycle, then a fish less cycle is the obvious choice. If you have the time to do those water changes and want to stock your tank slowly over time, then fish in is the right choice.

To be honest, I've seen fish in cycles take weeks longer than fish less cycles to complete and vice-versa. It all depends on technique and conditions.

 

[awilson360]

Normally when you remove 50% you replace it with fresh.

But for the record whilstever the flow through the filter is good then it isn't likely to be a problem. Ammonia and nitrites aren't static, they're in the water. The reason bacteria congregate in the filter isn't because we say so...

It's because the three things they need are:
Good O2 supply
Good nutrient supply
A solid surface to colonise on. I'm pretty sure the bacs we're talking about produce a protective biofilm... do they don't live seperately anways, they do live as a 'mass'

Anyways, point is those three things are covered by our filters perfectly because of the continuous through flow of water.

AlanTh - Would you please stop flaming internal power filters... if you spend some time looking around the boards you'll see the evidence yourself that prooves you're wrong. People accept that you wish to keep to older technology such as under gravel filters. But you don't need an undergravel filter or massive external to give you good water. You're very much in the past with your beliefs about fish keeping, I really think you'd find it enjoyable to read up on current techniques, not just because 'we say so' but to see that the reason we say it is for good reason... ie. it works!

UGF, Box Filters, Sponge Filters, Internal Power Filters, External Canister filters ALL work. And the sponge, box and UGF can all be powered by air pump or power head. So long as you have the right filter for your set-up, ie. large enough tank turnover and large enough media capacity for the stock you want then you will have no problems, regardless of which one you choose.

And no one with a cycled tank has 'better' water than anyone else. If you mean your water was visibly clearer? Then I would expect the other tanks you were looking at had issues...

Seriously... have a look around these forums at the 100's of people with internal power filters and the such like... particularly in the tank of the month competition. And then come back and say that internal power filters are rubbish.

I agree with Curiosity101 on this. All of these filters work and produce good water quality, they wouldn't be on the market if they didn't.
Undergravel filters work fine they are just harder to maintain than externals and internals. It all comes down to your budget and compromise with practicality. Each filter will eventually give you a cycled aquarium and some may give you "better" water (i.e. crystal clear) however each has its up sides and down sides.

I personally like HOB filters because of there simplicity, adjustable flow and the space available to cram with media. I also use a Fluval U series in my goldfish tank and that is perfectly fine, 2 healthy goldfish in there with water that I'm guessing must be good as the fish are growing big and healthy.

AW

 

[AlanTh]

"Remove 50% of the media" - who said that?

..... folks always like to see posts that "agree" with their "set up".

No one likes to waste money and get it all wrong.

I'm not Flaming internals.

In my view - UGF works better.

I would suggest that you are Flaming UGF.

 

[drobbyb]

It's not that UGF are being flamed, it's the fact that technology has improved on them. Gravel makes up your filter media when you use an UGF giving you a certain amount of surface area for the beneficial bacteria to colonize. Gravel does provide a good amount of surface area, but modern filter media provides more while taking up less space and at the same time ensuring that there is ample flow through it maximizing it's effect. UGF do the same when they are clean, but over time their efficiency drops due to all the solids that get trapped under the tray. This can result in "dead spots" and poor flow despite the use of powerheads. Water will flow with the path of least resistance. If one area of the UGF gets clogged, it reduces it's efficiency and the water will not flow through that area very well. This can be solved by the frequent and labor intensive task of tearing down the tank to clean under the UGF tray. No thanks, I'll rinse out my media to get the same effect.

 

[AlanTh]

Remove powerhead pump.

1" tube down uplift. Syphon.

This clears muck from under the plate - also does water change.

Use Vacuum cleaner if needed.

Why is this such hard work?

 

[drobbyb]

Because that doesn't get it all. I have worked in a few fish shops over the years, some of which used UGF as their sole filtration method. I have done the very thing that you have described. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

Look, if you want to use an UGF go right ahead, there's nothing wrong with them. Old technology doesn't necessarily mean bad. I mean, I use home made air driven sponge filters in my breeding and growout tanks to great success. You can't get much more low tech than that

Simply put, modern filters are more effective with less maintenance. For beginners modern filters are a great way to start since so many tend to push their stocking levels to their uppermost limit. Effectiveness and simplicity of maintenance really counts in this situation.

I'm not attacking you, on the contrary I am simply stating that UGF are not suited to everyone.

 

[AlanTh]

I am not a beginner. Maybe internals suit beginners - they are cheap and easy to run.

I honestly believe that if you have a good gravel base, well filtered - it is better than a sponge in a plastic container.

If the 1" tube "doesn't get it all" - try going down the other uplift. I have two powerheads working my 100 litre tank.

 

[OldMan47]

I have done almost nothing but fishless cycles since I discovered the whole concept. The main advantage that I see for a fishless cycle is that I don't need to do repeated water changes just to make things safe for my fish. With all of my operating tanks, a fish less cycle clone is little more than a week in duration so I seldom have any reason not to do one. I have had failed circumstances that forced me back into a fish-in cycle, like when I come home from an auction and don't have any tanks waiting for my newest fish species. In that case I will start a clone as usual but will do daily 80% or larger water changes to keep my fish healthy while the filter catches up in a fish-in manner.
The typical preference for a fishless cycle is simple to explain, in my way of looking at things. A fishless cycle can be done very easily with almost no water changes and merely requires patience. A fish-in cycle requires constant monitoring and many large water changes to get to a very low stocking level being safe. After that it requires extreme patience as you gradually build the stock level in a tank to reasonable levels while keeping the tank safe for those same fish. For many people, keeping a tank empty for a short time, maybe 6 or 8 weeks, is something they can do but testing daily and doing tons of water changes during that same period gives a feeling of fighting an uphill battle all the way.

 

[BethK]

AlanTH, please don't take this decent thread down the wrong alley.

All opinions are welcome, what works for one may well not work for the other

Thankyou OM, makes sense!