What Fish Are Suited For An "immature Tank?"

[NeonBlueLeon]

Let's be clear here.  By "immature tank," I do not mean an un-cycled tank.  By "immature tank," I mean a tank that has just been cycled, or newly cycled.  The definition of a mature tank would be a tank that has been cycled for at least six months.  Please correct and/or clarify my definition of a mature tank.
 
For some fish, just as an example cardinal tetras, I always here that it is not recommended they be put into an immature tank.  As I understand it, they are sensitive fish and may go belly-up if there was a mini-cycle.  Therefore, waiting until the tank has matured is key because a mature tank will be less likely to go through a mini-cycle and kill the cardinal tetras.
 
What fish, then, are considered suitable for an immature tank?

 

[DreamertK]

How large is the tank?

 

[Baccus]

A lot will depend on the size of the tank, if you intend to keep the fish after the tank is mature and also your level of filtration. As well as your waters pH and gH, these can be altered but there is a lot of mucking about to keep it consistant.
 
With so many fish now mass farmed and shipped all over the world some species of fish that used to be considered hardy are now prone to all sorts of conditions stemming from over crowding, inbreeding and even just the stress of transportation. And it also comes down to experience what one person might find hardy/ easy others may find a real challenge.
 
Do you know of anyone local to you also keeping fish? They may be able to help you with suitable fish that have been bred locally and are there fore already fairly used to your water parameters.
 
One potential fish for an immature tank, many people use danios to cycle their tank and they can be pretty resilient.

 

[NeonBlueLeon]

Actually I intended this thread to address immature tanks in general, but since I've been planning a tank, I'll use those specs.
 
Let's say it's a 30 gallon tank, 3 feet long (90 cm).  The filter will be an Eheim 2215 (rated for 90 gallon tanks on their website, 134 gph turnover).  The tank will be planted with everything from fast growing stems to anubias.  Target pH will be no higher than 7.5 with soft water.
 
When the tank is mature, I'd like to have cardinal tetras and GBRs.  What would be a good fish to start with in this case?

 

[DreamertK]

GBR - "It goes without saying that this species should never be added to new or otherwise biologically immature aquaria."
 
Cardinals might be ok, though there are probably hardier species out there.

 

[CrimsonBoli]

Cardinals will probably die if a 'mini-cycle' happens.

I've used a Zebra Danio to post-cycle (made that up) my newer tank. There hard as nails! He's been in 4 tanks in the past year (he's a temporary resident while a friend sorts their 60L tank with a sailfin and elephant fish)

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Once again here is an urban aquarium with being propagated regarding cardinal teteras. I have posted links and quotes from lab grade research on this very topic on several occasions bur am happy to do so again if it helps folks to realize that it is better to know than to assume because you read it somewhere on some fish site.
 
Tolerance to temperature, pH, ammonia and nitrite in cardinal tetra, Paracheirodon axelrodi, an amazonian ornamental fish
 

 
ABSTRACT
Poor water quality condition has been pointed out as one of the major causes for the high mortality of ornamental fishes exported from the state of Amazonas, Brazil. The purpose of the current study was to define water quality standards for cardinal tetra (Paracheirodon axelrodi), by establishing the lower and higher for lethal temperature (LT50), lethal concentration (LC50) for total ammonia and nitrite and LC50 for acid and alkaline pH. According to the findings, cardinal tetra is rather tolerant to high temperature (33.3o C), to a wide pH range (acid pH=2.9 and alkaline pH=8.8) and to high total ammonia concentration (23.7 mg/L). However, temperatures below 19.6o C and nitrite concentrations above 1.1 mg/L NO2- may compromise fish survival especially during long shipment abroad.................
 
The tests were carried out by adding a pre-established quantity of NH4Cl solution to the bath, which were evenly distributed into the chambers. The cardinal tetras were exposed to six concentrations: 0.9, 1.4, 8.5, 13.1, 18.6, 23.7 and 35.6 mg/L of total ammonia, yielding 0, 0.022, 0.032, 0.19, 0.23, 0.31, 0.44 and 0.85 mg/L NH3 (unionized ammonia). Test chamber ammonia concentration was determined daily and the water pH was monitored constantly. Nitrite tolerance tests were performed by adding the NaNO2 solution to obtain four nitrite concentrations (0.5; 1.0; 1.5 and 2.0 mg/L NO2-)...........
 
The findings in the current experiments indicated 100% survival of the fish in 96-h exposure to the control and 0.9-mg/L of total ammonia, while 98, 88, 85, 62, 30 and 25% of the fish survived to 1.4, 8.5, 13.1 18.6, 23.7 and 35.6 mg/L of total ammonia (or 0, 0.022 0.032, 0.19, 0.23, 0.31, 0.44 and 0.85 mg/L NH3) respectively. Lethal ammonia concentration (LC50) for cardinal tetra was calculated to be 23.7 mg/L NH3+ NH4+ or 0.36 mg/L NH3. The results obtained in this study are within the toxicity range suggested by Abdalla & MacNabb (1998), in which the lethal concentration of unionized ammonia for fish varies between 0.32 e 3.1 mg/L................. The data obtained indicate that the cardinal tetra may be considered as to be tolerant to ammonia, which certainly facilitates its survival, especially during transport from Barcelos to Manaus, when the total ammonia can reach high concentrations (< 12 mg/L) (Waichman et al., 2001).

from http/www.scielo.br/pdf/aa/v38n4/v38n4a23.pdf
 
So forums at some sites tell us one thing about cardinals and ammonia but the lab research tells us a completely opposite thing.
 
n the old days before fishless cycling becames the way to go, zebra danios made good cycling fish for tropical tanks, many barbs did as well. For cooler water tanks goldfish worked well. However, there is no reason these days to cycle with fish.

 

[NeonBlueLeon]

Thanks TwoTankAmin, but surviving is not thriving.  I am not hoping for my cardinal tetras to survive, I am looking for them to thrive.
 
Also, if I can eliminate water chemistry and poor ecology in my tank as a factor for cardinal tetra fatality, then I can focus on other possible factors that may cause fatalities.

Cardinals will probably die if a 'mini-cycle' happens.
I've used a Zebra Danio to post-cycle (made that up) my newer tank. There hard as nails! He's been in 4 tanks in the past year (he's a temporary resident while a friend sorts their 60L tank with a sailfin and elephant fish)

Poor Danios.  The guinea pigs of newly cycled aquariums.   I may borrow some danios from my LFS (borrow meaning purchase, then donate back) for my post cycle then.  Or I could endulge in MTS and get them their own home...

 

[CrimsonBoli]

Thanks TwoTankAmin, but surviving is not thriving.  I am not hoping for my cardinal tetras to survive, I am looking for them to thrive.
 
Also, if I can eliminate water chemistry and poor ecology in my tank as a factor for cardinal tetra fatality, then I can focus on other possible factors that may cause fatalities.

Cardinals will probably die if a 'mini-cycle' happens.
I've used a Zebra Danio to post-cycle (made that up) my newer tank. There hard as nails! He's been in 4 tanks in the past year (he's a temporary resident while a friend sorts their 60L tank with a sailfin and elephant fish)

Poor Danios.  The guinea pigs of newly cycled aquariums.

  I may borrow some danios from my LFS (borrow meaning purchase, then donate back) for my post cycle then.  Or I could endulge in MTS and get them their own home...

 
Yes! Is it catching on or is it an actual term?
 
I think because their farm bred temperate or tropical fish they are the toughest of the tough. And cheap. And scatty!

 

[nortonmad213]

i used zebra danios post cycle with the intention of returning to the lfs
then i fell in love with them . .. oops

 

 

 

[DreamertK]

I'd like to add wild caught fish or more expensive/rarer fish shouldn't be put in an immature tank, for other obvious reasons besides the cost.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

 
Thanks TwoTankAmin, but surviving is not thriving

 
Never said it was though, you have no science to back up your statement. It sounds nice but is short on facts. At exactly what exposure level for what amount of time is what sort of long term harm caused?
 
However, what I did say was that cardinals are not so sensitive to ammonia as the poster above me had stated. I stand by what I said. Cardianls are more ammonia hardy than most folks believe in this respect and I am happy to entertain any research you can cite to the contrary to change my belief on this.

 

[NeonBlueLeon]

Never said it was though, you have no science to back up your statement. It sounds nice but is short on facts. At exactly what exposure level for what amount of time is what sort of long term harm caused?
 
However, what I did say was that cardinals are not so sensitive to ammonia as the poster above me had stated. I stand by what I said. Cardianls are more ammonia hardy than most folks believe in this respect and I am happy to entertain any research you can cite to the contrary to change my belief on this.

Your article also does not back up the fact that the cardinals are not under stress in the various concentrations of ammonia.  However the fact there is mortality at all, even at low concentrations of ammonia, suggests that is the case.  But, like you said, this was not an explicit fact stated in the article, so for the sake of science, let us not assume they are experiencing stress.  Let us disregard all first-hand and second-hand experience that indicate ammonia causes stress (and thus not thriving) on fish for the sake of the scientific article.
 
Your article also does not investigate long term harm does it?  It does not mention the possibility of future kidney failure nor shortened life spans.  Your article investigates the level of lethality of ammonia and nitrites.  Surely, you are not suggesting that subjecting fish to any concentration of ammonia is permissible, even if the long term effects (whether they exist or not) cannot be observed.
 
Furthermore, a published scientific article does not make it irrefutable truth.  I know this because half of my job as a chemist is to read through scientific articles.  Articles published and peer-reviewed get disproved daily in the scientific community by newer publications; thus is the nature of science.  As a scientist, I know publications undergo extreme scrutiny, and the slightest untruths can and will destroy a publications credibility.  However, the science of aquaria is not as established and vast as other branches of science.  The level of scrutiny some of these publications face are not sufficient enough for me to pay any close attention to.  I have seen publications in the world of aquaria that almost directly contradict each other.
 
Posting on this thread by pasting an abstract of an article to contradict what someone has said is not constructive to the question stated by my thread.  And if we want to be truly detail-oriented, like a scientist would be, then he never said cardinal tetras were sensitive to ammonia, he said they were sensitive to a mini-cycle.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Neon- tell me how you measure shortened life expectancy for any given individual? My understanding is this is not possible to do because of the myriad uncontrollable variables involved.
 
But lets take one piece of information from that full cardinal study (not just an abstract as you wrongly claimed, I assume you did not click the link I provided to the full study?).
It noted that at a TA level of 1.4 ppm with an NH3 content of .022 ppm that 98% of the fish survived. I wonder if you put 100 cardinal tetras into any tank setup you wanted to specify, exactly how many of them might die over the next 4 days even with 0 ammonia, nitrite or nitrate in the water? Maybe one or two? So even stating that 2% of the fish died under the ammonia conditions described does not show that ammonia was the cause.
 
Moreover, I am willing to bet my dollars to your donuts that you cannot provide any links to research showing that any level of TA is harmful to fish in the absence of also knowing the level of NH3 in that TA reading. But try this- search this site for my posts on ammonia and toxicity, then go to all the links to studies I have included that will indicate that it is NH3 that is the key and not TA.
 
Now here is an abstract and conclusionary statement from another full study which might help.
 
Effects of chronic exposure to ammonia concentrations on brain monoamines and ATPases of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
 

Abstract
The effects of chronic exposure to total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) concentrations on the brain monoamines and ATPases of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus fingerlings, were studied. The period of exposure was 70 consecutive days, and the initial weight of the fingerlings was 18 ± 2.1 g. In addition to the control, three treatment groups exposed to 2.5 (low), 5 (medium), and 10 (high) mg TAN L−1 concentrations were tested. The unionized ammonia nitrogen (NH3) levels calculated in mg L−1 were 0.059, 0.185, and 0.575 in aquaria at 26 °C. The brain monoamines were serotonin (5-HT), dopamine (DA), and norepinephrine (NE), as well as their derivatives, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) and dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC). Compared with the controls, the levels of brain monoamines and Na+/K+- and Ca2+-ATPase activities were not significantly altered in fish exposed to low TAN concentration. However, there was a significant decrease in 5-HT, DA, and NE levels, and a significant increase in both serotonergic (5-HIAA/5-HT) and dopaminergic (DOPAC/DA) activities of fish exposed to medium TAN and high TAN concentrations. The activities of brain Na+/K+- and Ca2+-ATPases of fish exposed to medium TAN and high TAN concentrations significantly increased, while Mg2+-ATPase did not significantly change compared with that of the controls. The quantity of the detected alterations increased in fish exposed to high TAN concentration.........
 
In conclusion, there is a safe and acceptable level of chronic (10 weeks) exposure to ammonia concentration (2.5 mg TAN L−1) beyond which alterations in brain monoamine levels, ATPases activity, and growth rates are observed in Nile tilapia.

from http/www.academia.edu/download/31062190/Effects_of_chronic_exposure_to_ammonia_concentrations_on_brain_monoamines_and.pdf
 
So perhaps you can explain how the fish exposed to 2.5 ppm TAN (note this is equal to 3.15 ppm on an API ammonia kit) and an NH3 level of .059 ppm (The Merck veterinary manual considers this level of NH3 to be harmful to much aquatic life) and yet they found no significant changes to the fish brains from this. And that is after 70 days of exposure.
 
Then I would observe this, the experiment exposed the fish to ammonia for 70 days. How many days are fish exposed to ammonia etc. during a full fish in cycle done right let alone a mini-cycle that runs its course in a matter of days?
 
There really is science out there on the topic, one just has to do the work to find and read it.
 
But lets go back to your "original understanding" about cardinal tetras and cycling- you are still incorrect in your assumption that cards are more sensitive to cycling issues, the fact is they are more hardy than many fish in this respect.

 

[NeonBlueLeon]

Again, your article is talking about nile tilapia, oreochromis niloticus, not cardinal tetras.  Nile tilapia is a very different fish from a very different environment, and yet you are generalizing the claims made by this article about Nile tilapia to fit your own argument.  That is unacceptable scientific thinking.
 

 

 
The findings in the current experiments indicated 100% survival of the fish in 96-h exposure to the control and 0.9-mg/L of total ammonia, while 98, 88, 85, 62, 30 and 25% of the fish survived to 1.4, 8.5, 13.1 18.6, 23.7 and 35.6 mg/L of total ammonia (or 0, 0.022 0.032, 0.19, 0.23, 0.31, 0.44 and 0.85 mg/L NH3) respectively. Lethal ammonia concentration (LC50) for cardinal tetra was calculated to be 23.7 mg/L NH3+ NH4+ or 0.36 mg/L NH3. The results obtained in this study are within the toxicity range suggested by Abdalla & MacNabb (1998), in which the lethal concentration of unionized ammonia for fish varies between 0.32 e 3.1 mg/L................. The data obtained indicate that the cardinal tetra may be considered as to be tolerant to ammonia, which certainly facilitates its survival, especially during transport from Barcelos to Manaus, when the total ammonia can reach high concentrations (< 12 mg/L) (Waichman et al., 2001).

I suggest you reread the article that you posted.  There are a couple issues.  You said that at 1.4 mg/L TA, there would be a con'c of 0.22 mg/L resulting in a rate of 98% survival.  Reread the article closely and the respective numbers indicate at 1.4 mg/L TA, there is 0 mg/L ammonia, with a 98% survivability rate.  That matches with general mortality trends when putting fish into new environments.  Like you said, there was 0 ammonia, and yet there are still mortalities.  The next set of values then, are 8.5 mg/L TA, or 0.022 mg/L and an 88% survival rate.  That is a 10% drop in survivability due to a small concentration of ammonia.  So, I stand by my opinion (not fact) that cardinals are somewhat sensitive to ammonia.
 
Another issue with that paragraph is this.  There are six values of survivability data, six values of TA concentration, and eight values of UA concentration.  Was that a mistake, or are they leaving something up to assumption?  Both mistakes and assumptions are unacceptable in scientific publications.  Frankly, that disparallel in data presentation is confusing.  So, I stand by my opinion that some articles published in the aquaria community simply do not stand up to enough scrutiny.  If I came across a blunder like that (in the abstract for Pete's sake) while searching a database for info, I would have disregarded that article immediately.
 
 

Then I would observe this, the experiment exposed the fish to ammonia for 70 days. How many days are fish exposed to ammonia etc. during a full fish in cycle done right let alone a mini-cycle that runs its course in a matter of days?

This is not an observation, by the way.  You did not observe it nor is it an observation.  It is a rhetorical question.  What place do rhetorical questions have in science?  If you want to come across as a scientific thinker, state facts.
 
Also worth noting, just because something has not been published in a scientific article, does not make it untrue.  Therefore, it is not valid to assert that my statements are untrue because I cannot find an article to say it is.