Why Water Changes During Cycling Are Good

n3ont3tra

Lets go Flyers
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
3,123
Reaction score
0
Location
PA
Great post. Very interesting. I'll even put it on my siggy.
 

cc_woman

New Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Thank you for all the useful information. It will help me out for future times of buying any new tanks. I just love hearing smart people talk, people who actually know exactly what they are talking about. It bothers me when I get bad information on something, or I see others giving bad advice. I think this forum is great for that.
 

Piltdownpaul

Fish Herder
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,538
Reaction score
0
I've never had a problem doing large water changes in the cycle-In fact i didnt realize it could be a problem thinking the bacteria were multiplying on substrate etc. My 88 litre tanks cycled in 4 to 5 weeks so it cant be lengthening the cycle. Good post knowledgeable friend!! :good:
 

pastabake

Fish Crazy
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Location
Luton, UK
Nice one Bignose. I followed your idea and limited my ammonia to +1ppm per day with a max concentration of 5ppm at its peak and my tank cycled in 20 days. I was going to ramp up my ammonia at the end by adding 2,3,4,5ppm post cycle so as to be able to add a full stock of fish but an unexpected hospital visit put an end to that and by the time I got back the tank was being used for fry. Still its good to provide further evidence.
 

Gillymore

New Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Location
Teesside/UK
Plenty in there to think about and debate. I'ma bit shellshocked and probably need to read through a few more times to get a clearer idea of the concept(s).
 
OP
OP
Bignose

Bignose

Birds just don't know how to follow the rules.
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
2,728
Reaction score
0
Location
IL
I like that this post keeps coming back -- it helps that more and more people are reading it. The word will get out eventually, and I am so happy because it is going to help keep more fish healthier and more people will enjoy this hobby.
 

Zincubus

Fish Fanatic
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Interesting post and stats !!


I reckon that you would appreciate this site !

<removed non-permitted link - Bignose>
 

nickelplates

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Location
UK - Midlands
Great work and a great read. I have recently returned to fishkeeping after a five year break and done a cycle with fish but very few, probably less than most do. The thing that interests me is that with such a small quantity of fish I was able to keep the ammonia very low with water changes, tested daily and never had ammonia above 0.3ppm. Of course once cycled the bacterial colony would still be relatively small but coping with the small amount of fish waste. What your analysis also shows is that having reached this position it is not neccesary to add new fish over a long time as conventional wisdom suggests, instead you could double the population every day until you reached full stock levels and still not overwhelm the filter and push ammonia up again, though in practice I would suggest a little slower than this!

If anyone is interested my fish never showed any sign of stress and all of them are still fit and healthy. Cycling with fish needs care and commitment but I don't think it is the evil it is made out to be unless it is mismanaged.

Another point about filters and bacteria is that the bacteria don't stop multiplying when they can just cope with the waste, they carry on until no more can live on the waste being produced which is a higher population. This means that taking a proportion of your filter media out to give to a friend or whatever will not normally cause a mini-cycle as the remaining bacteria will consume more waste and use the energy to multiply and restore the population to the higher level. Not quite sure what the ratio of the two population levels is, maybe the original poster has some thoughts.
 

luckyd

Fish Fanatic
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
87
Reaction score
1
Wow, I just read your post and it's very helpful. The guy at the pet store told us not to chnage the water during the first month but I was skeptical. We've been doing 10% per day but ammonia is still in the high stress level. Would we be safe to try a 50% water change? My new dalmation molly unexpectedly dropped fry a couple of weeks into the cycle so we're trying cycle and take care of the babies at the same time. It's a five gallon tank. I know -- too small. But we started with one fish, and were going to add just one more -- not eight! Thanks for any help you can give me.

For a long time, I've seen the "common knowledge" that while a tank is cycling, you don't want to do any water changes. (Obviously, this is cycling with fish, not fish-less cycling). One of the reasons given is that you'll take away the bacterial colony's food and the colony won't grow. Or that the colony won't grow large enough to handle the fish's bio-load if you do water changes during the process. Another reason given is that by doing water changes, you'll lengthen the cycling process, and that since the fish in the tank are being exposed to ammonia anyway, getting it done as soon as possible is desirable.

There are many, many websites out there that repeat this same information, Google brings up many examples.

It's time to show everyone that this information, this "common knowledge" is just plain wrong.

First, let me explain the theory behind cycling. The steady state of the situation is well known to us. The size of the bacterial colony is large enough that it consumes all the ammonia the fish produce immediately. Worded another way, the rate of consumption (by the bacteria) is equal to the rate of production (by the fish). Or, to write it mathematically,

r_p = r_c

r_p stands for rate of production
r_c stands for rate of consumption

Let me re-write this equation as (the reason why will become apparent soon)

0 = r_p - r_c

However, while the tank is cycling, the rate of production and the rate of consumption are not equal. Specifically, the rate of production is greater than the rate of consumption (mathematically r_p > r_c). The bacterial colony hasn't grown large enough to consume a large amount of ammonia yet. That leads to an accumulation.

a = r_p - r_c

where a stands for the accumulation of ammonia. (for the real math nerds out there a = dc/dt where c is the concentration of ammonia and t is time)

The real power of this equation and the above one is that it is not the amount of ammonia that is in the tank that is important. It is rates of production and consumption that are important. When the rates are equal, no ammonia will accumulate in the tank, and that is what we read when we take the sample. A reading of zero indicates that the rate of consumption by the current bacterial colony is equal to or greater than the rate of production by the fish.

However, a reading of some ammonia, tells you virtually nothing about the rates in the tank. The ammonia reading is like a snapshot of a moving target. You get a picture of the tank at that exact moment, but it doesn't tell you anything about the dynamics of the situation at that time.

Also, it is very important to note that the rates themselves are independent of the ammonia reading at any time. This can be taken advantage of, because, if you do waterchanges while the cycling process is going on, you can dilute the poison the fish are living in, and not disturb the cycling process. The bacteria can only eat so much in a given day, and until the very end of the cycling process, the bacteria aren't going to consume as much as the fish produce in a single day. For example, if on a certain day, the bacteria can consume 0.1 ppm of ammonia, they don't care if there is 1 ppm of ammonia or 5 ppm of ammonia in the tank. Just so long as there is at least 0.1 ppm of ammonia in the tank, the colony gets as much food as it can consume, it will grow and consume a certain amount the next day. The bacteria only stop growing if there is insufficient food. So, since the bacteria don't care if there is 0.1 ppm, 1 ppm, or 5 ppm, there is no reason not to do a water change to dilute that down -- just so long as you don't dilute it down below 0.1 ppm. Because, the fish very much care if they are living in 0.1 ppm, 1 ppm, or 5 ppm. That this can be done is what I am going to show below.

I set up an excel sheet to simulate this equation. One where I simulate straight cycling without water changes, and one where I simulate doing a 10% water change at the end of every day. I picked r_p = 1 ppm of ammonia per day, and r_c = 0.000014 ppm of ammonia per day for the first day. Then, everyday after after that r_c doubles (approximating that the filter bacteria double in number roughly once every 24 hours). That is, on day 2, r_c = 0.000028, on day 3 r_c = 0.000056 and so on. This choice of r_c on the first day will become apparent below.


day....ammonia reading at end day (ppm)
..1.....0.999986
..2.....1.999958
..3.....2.999902
..4.....3.999790
..5.....4.999566
..6.....5.999118
..7.....6.998222
..8.....7.996430
..9.....8.992846
.10.....9.985678
.11.....10.971342
.12.....11.942670
.13.....12.885326
.14.....13.770638
.15.....14.541262
.16.....15.082510
.17.....15.165006
.18.....14.329998
.19.....11.659982
.20.....5.319950
.21.....0

The tank took 21 days to cycle, and the ammonia got up to 15.16 ppm as a maximum concentration. This is pretty high, and might have needed emergency action at that level. (If I may not too immodest, see my other article to compute when emergency action is needed: http://www.fishforums.net/content/forum/15...Ammonia-Charts/ ) Most test kits don't go up to that high anyway.

Now, let's look at a tank that gets a 10% water change at the end of each day:

..1.....0.999986
..2.....1.8999594
..3.....2.70990746
..4.....3.438804714
..5.....4.094700243
..6.....4.684782218
..7.....5.215407997
..8.....5.692075197
..9.....6.119283677
.10.....6.500187309
.11.....6.835832579
.12.....7.123577321
.13.....7.353875589
.14.....7.50380003
.15.....7.524044027
.16.....7.312887624
.17.....6.664094862
.18.....5.162677376
.19.....1.976393638
.20.....0

This tank cycled one day faster. And the maximum level of ammonia that built up, 7.52 ppm, was less than half of the maximum of the non-water changed maximum of 15.16 ppm. 7.52 is still pretty high, but probably not nearly as bad a 15 ppm. The filter bacteria do not get starved, there is plenty of ammonia to eat every day until the last one when the tank is cycled. In fact, at that point, the bacteria colony has grown large enough to consume 3.67 ppm of ammonia per day, more than 3 times as much as needed -- recall that the fish are assumed to excrete 1 ppm of ammonia per day. And, of course, the objection that cycling takes longer is smashed, because this tank actually cycled one day sooner.

Normally, this is where my argument would end. Personally, I think the math is convincing enough, but I also know the math really well. I know that most others don't know the math as well as I do, or quite get the math. However, Over the last month, I've been performing an experiment. I took my quarantine tanks, two bare 10 gallon tanks, and two extra filters I have and set the tanks up. I performed the experiment that the math above describes.

Here's the details. I did fishless cycles, because then I could control exactly how much ammonia went into each tank. Both tanks were set up the same, and I took the readings at the same time each night. I added the ammonia at the same time each day. I added enough ammonia to be equal to 1 ppm per day. The test kit I used was brand new, and measured from 0 to 7 ppm of ammonia. The gradations were 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 7+ ppm. I had to guess some of the intermediate values, so, I only report whole numbers (no decimals) because they are just guesses. Anything at 7 or above is just recorded as 7, because that is the limit of the tank.

Here's my computational results side-by-side with the experimental results.
day.....computer.....experiment
1.....0.999986.....1
2.....1.999958.....2
3.....2.999902.....3
4.....3.999790.....4
5.....4.999566.....5
6.....5.999118.....6
7.....6.998222.....7
8.....7.996430.....7
9.....8.992846.....7
10.....9.985678.....7
11.....10.971342.....7
12.....11.942670.....7
13.....12.885326.....7
14.....13.770638.....7
15.....14.541262.....7
16.....15.082510.....7
17.....15.165006.....7
18.....14.329998.....7
19.....11.659982.....7
20.....5.3199505.....4
21.....0....................0

Now you see why I used r_c = 0.000014 as the first day's consumption value. It is the value that best fit my data. It is actually a pretty good fit between the experiment and data. The tank cycled on the same day, and the decrease at the end is missed just a little. I got a value of 4 ppm for the 20th day's experimental value, when the computer predicts 5.3 ppm. But, I think that is pretty good. Most likely, the simple doubling rule isn't quite right when the food is starting to become scarcer. Nevertheless, it shows that model used is pretty darn good, really.

Here's the tank with the 10% water changes done every day (I did the water change everyday immediately after doing taking the ammonia readings).

1.....0.999986.....1
2.....1.8999594.....2
3.....2.70990746.....3
4.....3.438804714.....3
5.....4.094700243.....4
6.....4.684782218.....5
7.....5.215407997.....5
8.....5.692075197.....6
9.....6.119283677.....6
10.....6.500187309.....6
11.....6.835832579.....7
12.....7.123577321.....7
13.....7.353875589.....7
14.....7.50380003.....7
15.....7.524044027.....7
16.....7.312887624.....7
17.....6.664094862.....7
18.....5.162677376.....6
19.....1.976393638.....3
20.....0.........................0

Again, very good agreement between simulation and experiment. The tank did indeed cycle one day earlier than the non-waterchanged tank. The readings taken during the beginning and the simulation agree very well, though again at the end of the cycling the experiment and the computer had some small disagreement. The disagreement is not large, and I think that the general trend is captured really well.

Since I feel the model is pretty well verified now, I ran a few more simulations. A tank that undergoes 25% waterchanges everyday reaches a maximum of 3.82 ppm of ammonia, and is cycled by the end of day 19. A tank that undergoes a 50% waterchange every day reaches a maximum of 1.99 ppm of ammonia and is cycled by the end of day 18.

I am fairly confident of the 25% water changed tank, but not sure of the 50% tank. The levels are kept very low in that tank, and since the bacteria don't grow exponentially (doubling every day) when the food levels are lower, it may not be exactly right Nevertheless, the idea is very similar, you can keep the ammonia levels low without sacrificing speed of the cycling process. Keeping the ammonia levels low keeps the fish in much better health than otherwise.

For example, see "Low levels of environmental ammonia increase susceptibility to disease in Chinook salmon smolts " by Ackerman PA, Wicks BJ, Iwama GK, Randall DJ in PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY volume 79 JUL-AUG 2006) which showed that fish exposed to low levels of ammonia were more susceptible to disease later on in life. Basically, exposure to any levels of ammonia leads to greater health problems for the rest of the fish's lives. But, the lower that exposure, the less susceptible the fish will be later in its life.

************************************************

In conclusion, I have given both experimental and computational evidence why it is not bad to perform waterchanges while cycling, and indeed actually beneficial. The experimental evidence I think is particularly compelling, it is no longer just a theory or a mathematical construct that I came up with. The theory matches the experiment pretty well. The experimentally waterchanged tank cycled one day earlier than the non-waterchanged one. Unfortunately the test kit couldn't measure high enough to measure the peak concentration each tank go up to, but I think that the very good matching of the curve up and then the pretty good matching of the curve down is excellent.

So, everyone, please do waterchanges even when cycling. Especially at the beginning when the bacterial colony is just starting to grow and can only consume a very tiny percentage of the fish waste every day. At that stage you can do very large water changes to keep the ammonia level down then and later. It doesn't matter because the bacterial colony will grow until the rate of consumption is equal to the rate of production. And, so long as the temperature, pH, and hardness of the replacement water is the same as the tank water, there is no harm in doing large water changes, 50%, 70% even 90% if you have the capability.
 

bubble87

Fish Crazy
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
so do you think that doing a 10% water change every day wilst doing a fish in cycle would be more better than doing larger water changes every few days?
 

Steve H.

Fishaholic
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
502
Reaction score
6
Location
Pingree Grove, Illinois
For a long time, I've seen the "common knowledge" that while a tank is cycling, you don't want to do any water changes. (Obviously, this is cycling with fish, not fish-less cycling). One of the reasons given is that you'll take away the bacterial colony's food and the colony won't grow. Or that the colony won't grow large enough to handle the fish's bio-load if you do water changes during the process. Another reason given is that by doing water changes, you'll lengthen the cycling process, and that since the fish in the tank are being exposed to ammonia anyway, getting it done as soon as possible is desirable.

There are many, many websites out there that repeat this same information, Google brings up many examples.

It's time to show everyone that this information, this "common knowledge" is just plain wrong.

First, let me explain the theory behind cycling. The steady state of the situation is well known to us. The size of the bacterial colony is large enough that it consumes all the ammonia the fish produce immediately. Worded another way, the rate of consumption (by the bacteria) is equal to the rate of production (by the fish). Or, to write it mathematically,

r_p = r_c

r_p stands for rate of production
r_c stands for rate of consumption

Let me re-write this equation as (the reason why will become apparent soon)

0 = r_p - r_c

However, while the tank is cycling, the rate of production and the rate of consumption are not equal. Specifically, the rate of production is greater than the rate of consumption (mathematically r_p > r_c). The bacterial colony hasn't grown large enough to consume a large amount of ammonia yet. That leads to an accumulation.

a = r_p - r_c

where a stands for the accumulation of ammonia. (for the real math nerds out there a = dc/dt where c is the concentration of ammonia and t is time)

The real power of this equation and the above one is that it is not the amount of ammonia that is in the tank that is important. It is rates of production and consumption that are important. When the rates are equal, no ammonia will accumulate in the tank, and that is what we read when we take the sample. A reading of zero indicates that the rate of consumption by the current bacterial colony is equal to or greater than the rate of production by the fish.

However, a reading of some ammonia, tells you virtually nothing about the rates in the tank. The ammonia reading is like a snapshot of a moving target. You get a picture of the tank at that exact moment, but it doesn't tell you anything about the dynamics of the situation at that time.

Also, it is very important to note that the rates themselves are independent of the ammonia reading at any time. This can be taken advantage of, because, if you do waterchanges while the cycling process is going on, you can dilute the poison the fish are living in, and not disturb the cycling process. The bacteria can only eat so much in a given day, and until the very end of the cycling process, the bacteria aren't going to consume as much as the fish produce in a single day. For example, if on a certain day, the bacteria can consume 0.1 ppm of ammonia, they don't care if there is 1 ppm of ammonia or 5 ppm of ammonia in the tank. Just so long as there is at least 0.1 ppm of ammonia in the tank, the colony gets as much food as it can consume, it will grow and consume a certain amount the next day. The bacteria only stop growing if there is insufficient food. So, since the bacteria don't care if there is 0.1 ppm, 1 ppm, or 5 ppm, there is no reason not to do a water change to dilute that down -- just so long as you don't dilute it down below 0.1 ppm. Because, the fish very much care if they are living in 0.1 ppm, 1 ppm, or 5 ppm. That this can be done is what I am going to show below.

I set up an excel sheet to simulate this equation. One where I simulate straight cycling without water changes, and one where I simulate doing a 10% water change at the end of every day. I picked r_p = 1 ppm of ammonia per day, and r_c = 0.000014 ppm of ammonia per day for the first day. Then, everyday after after that r_c doubles (approximating that the filter bacteria double in number roughly once every 24 hours). That is, on day 2, r_c = 0.000028, on day 3 r_c = 0.000056 and so on. This choice of r_c on the first day will become apparent below.


day....ammonia reading at end day (ppm)
..1.....0.999986
..2.....1.999958
..3.....2.999902
..4.....3.999790
..5.....4.999566
..6.....5.999118
..7.....6.998222
..8.....7.996430
..9.....8.992846
.10.....9.985678
.11.....10.971342
.12.....11.942670
.13.....12.885326
.14.....13.770638
.15.....14.541262
.16.....15.082510
.17.....15.165006
.18.....14.329998
.19.....11.659982
.20.....5.319950
.21.....0

The tank took 21 days to cycle, and the ammonia got up to 15.16 ppm as a maximum concentration. This is pretty high, and might have needed emergency action at that level. (If I may not too immodest, see my other article to compute when emergency action is needed: http://www.fishforums.net/content/forum/15...Ammonia-Charts/ ) Most test kits don't go up to that high anyway.

Now, let's look at a tank that gets a 10% water change at the end of each day:

..1.....0.999986
..2.....1.8999594
..3.....2.70990746
..4.....3.438804714
..5.....4.094700243
..6.....4.684782218
..7.....5.215407997
..8.....5.692075197
..9.....6.119283677
.10.....6.500187309
.11.....6.835832579
.12.....7.123577321
.13.....7.353875589
.14.....7.50380003
.15.....7.524044027
.16.....7.312887624
.17.....6.664094862
.18.....5.162677376
.19.....1.976393638
.20.....0

This tank cycled one day faster. And the maximum level of ammonia that built up, 7.52 ppm, was less than half of the maximum of the non-water changed maximum of 15.16 ppm. 7.52 is still pretty high, but probably not nearly as bad a 15 ppm. The filter bacteria do not get starved, there is plenty of ammonia to eat every day until the last one when the tank is cycled. In fact, at that point, the bacteria colony has grown large enough to consume 3.67 ppm of ammonia per day, more than 3 times as much as needed -- recall that the fish are assumed to excrete 1 ppm of ammonia per day. And, of course, the objection that cycling takes longer is smashed, because this tank actually cycled one day sooner.

Normally, this is where my argument would end. Personally, I think the math is convincing enough, but I also know the math really well. I know that most others don't know the math as well as I do, or quite get the math. However, Over the last month, I've been performing an experiment. I took my quarantine tanks, two bare 10 gallon tanks, and two extra filters I have and set the tanks up. I performed the experiment that the math above describes.

Here's the details. I did fishless cycles, because then I could control exactly how much ammonia went into each tank. Both tanks were set up the same, and I took the readings at the same time each night. I added the ammonia at the same time each day. I added enough ammonia to be equal to 1 ppm per day. The test kit I used was brand new, and measured from 0 to 7 ppm of ammonia. The gradations were 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 7+ ppm. I had to guess some of the intermediate values, so, I only report whole numbers (no decimals) because they are just guesses. Anything at 7 or above is just recorded as 7, because that is the limit of the tank.

Here's my computational results side-by-side with the experimental results.
day.....computer.....experiment
1.....0.999986.....1
2.....1.999958.....2
3.....2.999902.....3
4.....3.999790.....4
5.....4.999566.....5
6.....5.999118.....6
7.....6.998222.....7
8.....7.996430.....7
9.....8.992846.....7
10.....9.985678.....7
11.....10.971342.....7
12.....11.942670.....7
13.....12.885326.....7
14.....13.770638.....7
15.....14.541262.....7
16.....15.082510.....7
17.....15.165006.....7
18.....14.329998.....7
19.....11.659982.....7
20.....5.3199505.....4
21.....0....................0

Now you see why I used r_c = 0.000014 as the first day's consumption value. It is the value that best fit my data. It is actually a pretty good fit between the experiment and data. The tank cycled on the same day, and the decrease at the end is missed just a little. I got a value of 4 ppm for the 20th day's experimental value, when the computer predicts 5.3 ppm. But, I think that is pretty good. Most likely, the simple doubling rule isn't quite right when the food is starting to become scarcer. Nevertheless, it shows that model used is pretty darn good, really.

Here's the tank with the 10% water changes done every day (I did the water change everyday immediately after doing taking the ammonia readings).

1.....0.999986.....1
2.....1.8999594.....2
3.....2.70990746.....3
4.....3.438804714.....3
5.....4.094700243.....4
6.....4.684782218.....5
7.....5.215407997.....5
8.....5.692075197.....6
9.....6.119283677.....6
10.....6.500187309.....6
11.....6.835832579.....7
12.....7.123577321.....7
13.....7.353875589.....7
14.....7.50380003.....7
15.....7.524044027.....7
16.....7.312887624.....7
17.....6.664094862.....7
18.....5.162677376.....6
19.....1.976393638.....3
20.....0.........................0

Again, very good agreement between simulation and experiment. The tank did indeed cycle one day earlier than the non-waterchanged tank. The readings taken during the beginning and the simulation agree very well, though again at the end of the cycling the experiment and the computer had some small disagreement. The disagreement is not large, and I think that the general trend is captured really well.

Since I feel the model is pretty well verified now, I ran a few more simulations. A tank that undergoes 25% waterchanges everyday reaches a maximum of 3.82 ppm of ammonia, and is cycled by the end of day 19. A tank that undergoes a 50% waterchange every day reaches a maximum of 1.99 ppm of ammonia and is cycled by the end of day 18.

I am fairly confident of the 25% water changed tank, but not sure of the 50% tank. The levels are kept very low in that tank, and since the bacteria don't grow exponentially (doubling every day) when the food levels are lower, it may not be exactly right Nevertheless, the idea is very similar, you can keep the ammonia levels low without sacrificing speed of the cycling process. Keeping the ammonia levels low keeps the fish in much better health than otherwise.

For example, see "Low levels of environmental ammonia increase susceptibility to disease in Chinook salmon smolts " by Ackerman PA, Wicks BJ, Iwama GK, Randall DJ in PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY volume 79 JUL-AUG 2006) which showed that fish exposed to low levels of ammonia were more susceptible to disease later on in life. Basically, exposure to any levels of ammonia leads to greater health problems for the rest of the fish's lives. But, the lower that exposure, the less susceptible the fish will be later in its life.

************************************************

In conclusion, I have given both experimental and computational evidence why it is not bad to perform waterchanges while cycling, and indeed actually beneficial. The experimental evidence I think is particularly compelling, it is no longer just a theory or a mathematical construct that I came up with. The theory matches the experiment pretty well. The experimentally waterchanged tank cycled one day earlier than the non-waterchanged one. Unfortunately the test kit couldn't measure high enough to measure the peak concentration each tank go up to, but I think that the very good matching of the curve up and then the pretty good matching of the curve down is excellent.

So, everyone, please do waterchanges even when cycling. Especially at the beginning when the bacterial colony is just starting to grow and can only consume a very tiny percentage of the fish waste every day. At that stage you can do very large water changes to keep the ammonia level down then and later. It doesn't matter because the bacterial colony will grow until the rate of consumption is equal to the rate of production. And, so long as the temperature, pH, and hardness of the replacement water is the same as the tank water, there is no harm in doing large water changes, 50%, 70% even 90% if you have the capability.
 

Steve H.

Fishaholic
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
502
Reaction score
6
Location
Pingree Grove, Illinois
Nice info...makes me feel somewhat at ease. I have been doing 50% water changes every day during my cycling, and was beginning to wonder if is too much.
Now on day 11 and not sure if I should back off?
I do have 6 small barbs in a 10gal tank (I know...newbie mistake), but that's why I've been a freak about daily 50% changes to ease stress on the fish. At the same time I don't want to stunt the growth of the bacterial colony.

Also, your data is for the cycling process of ammonia. What about nitrites?
Is it say 20 days for ammonia, and then additional days to complete nitrites?

Thanks for any response from anyone
 

HM Dragon Devil

Fish Fanatic
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Location
GB
This post is certainly going to help me through my fish-in tank cycle.

Great post and very informative.

Thanks,
Dean.
 

Most reactions

Top