# Will fishless cycling harm plants?



## Deisler

I will prepare all the scape and plants, before starting the fishless cycling. I dont think ammonia is harmful to the plants but want to double-check here if high ammonia (~4ppm) would be harmful for plants?

Thanks, 
D

I've also seen some products on ebay, which claim 'an immediate establishment of biological environment'. I guess they introduce bacteria directly into the aquarium? Has anyone tried those products before? Are they really that good?

PS: Another concern is: I've heard that starting a planted tank is quite different from a normal tank without plants. So perhaps adding ammonia will introduce algae problem?


----------



## Michael W

Hi welcome to the forums,

It is not necessary to add ammonia to do a fishless cycle. In fact by having a filter and the aquarium filled with water, leave it for a few weeks and it will be cycled. Ammonia if anything will kill bacteria. Note that house hold products advertised for cleaning/removing bacteria will more often than not contain ammonia.

Those products that you see is there to punch holes into your wallet, feel free to ignore those. 

There is no need to be concerned about plants in a fishless cycle, go ahead and throw them in, they will help with the process for sure!

Michael.


----------



## parotet

The best way to cycle a tank is adding plants. Forget about adding ammonia, your microbes need first of all oxygen to thrive (they are highly demanding organisms in terms of oxygen consumption). The snake oil on eBay won't do anything in your tank but a hole in your wallet. The time needed to cycle a tank is 2-3 weeks and nothing will make this period shorter. Plants will produce oxygen in the water column and will drive oxygen to the substrate. Plants also can uptake ammonia (ammonia contains nitrogen). Actually they will uptake ammonia, nitrites and nitrates... So you want them in your tank from the very beginning. No need to buy ammonia or nitrites tests. Plant densely, wait for one week, add some shrimp, wait two weeks more and add the fish you want.
Google 'ukaps fishless cycling' (works better than the search engine) and you will have brilliant explanations to learn why adding ammonia is not the best idea in a planted tank.

Jordi


----------



## darren636

Leaving water in a tank doing nothing  will leave  you  with 3 week old water

Using soil or adding 2 ppm ammonia will cycle the tank .

But then we get into the age old test kit brouhaha... Jeesh.

Its like giving an Uzi to someone who has no concept of firearms.


----------



## Wallace

Why not just plant well and add fish from the start?

Carry out water changes daily and everything will be ok, no need to add Ammonia to the tank and no real need for inaccurate test kits. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## darren636

And then let's consider  aquasoil
This stuff and others , releases vast amounts of ammonia ( off the scale last time I used it)
 Much more ammonia than I cycle with (2ppm)

So what's it gonna be chaps?
You can't denounce cycling with ammonia
 When many of the most expensive and fully loaded substrates release much more ....
 Curious...


----------



## Michael W

Hi all,

I advocate not using ammonia due to my father's fishkeeping experience, when I got into the hobby he had just told me to leave the water with the filter running and have your substrate in there and what have you. He didn't even tell me to change the water, we never used test kits and what have you. I did question him after reading about adding ammonia/fish food and what have you, he just said that it was a load of rubbish. So i trusted him and did as follows for many years without and trouble. I've always wanted to advice this but I was too scared of saying, just because it "contradicts" a lot of the teachings online... that is until I read this thread http://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/bacterial-colony-or-algae.31254/#post-330006 which confirmed what my father said.


----------



## ian_m

Even better than ammonia, widdle in your tank...
http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/fishless-cycling

I once posted a dirty filter sponge to my mate to get a tank started. He chopped it up in amongst the ceramic balls of his new Eheim filter for an emergency replacement tank.

I have also used daily dosing on AmQuel+ to start a brand new tank with fish. Worked fine.


----------



## darren636

ian_m said:


> Even better than ammonia, widdle in your tank...
> http://www.skepticalaquarist.com/fishless-cycling
> 
> I once posted a dirty filter sponge to my mate to get a tank started. He chopped it up in amongst the ceramic balls of his new Eheim filter for an emergency replacement tank.
> 
> I have also used daily dosing on AmQuel+ to start a brand new tank with fish. Worked fine.


That is ammonia
And a whole bunch of human related nastiness which you don't want in a tank.

And in case you're wondering,
My 2ppm ammonia method happens to be backed by a professor of microbiology/ Scientology/ I've got a brand new combine harvester.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





darren636 said:


> And then let's consider aquasoil. This stuff and others , releases vast amounts of ammonia ( off the scale last time I used it)
> Much more ammonia than I cycle with (2ppm) So what's it gonna be chaps?
> You can't denounce cycling with ammonia
> When many of the most expensive and fully loaded substrates release much more ....
> Curious...


 I've never used any of the complete substrates like "Aquasoil", but if you have a high nitrogen environment (particularly with high ammonia) the answer is just to increase the plant mass (and particularly plants with access to aerial CO2) and add extra aeration.  You can then use the colour and growth rate of the floating and emergent plants to give you an approximation of the nitrogen content of the water.

This is the original "*Duckweed Index*", where is was developed for high nutrient situations. The great advantage of a large plant mass is that you have a negative feedback loop <*"Growing Duckweed to Recover Nutrients from Wastewaters and for Production of Fuel Ethanol and Animal Feed"*>, where increased nutrients drive increased plant growth, and increased plant growth depletes the available nutrients.

There is more in these threads on UKAPS  <*"bacterial colony or algae?"*> & <*"N2, harmful or not?"*>.

The real difference between plant/microbe systems and microbe only systems, like an un-planted tank without a substrate, (or with regularly vacuumed gravel) and a filter is that the maximum potential capacity of the "microbial only" system is only about 10% of the plant/microbe option.

Theoretically you can improve nutrient removal in microbe only systems by adding  anaerobic denitrification in a plenum or deep sand bed. This is possible, but has a number of practical disadvantages.  <"*Alfagrog for reducing nitrates*">

The same applies to building up your microbial denitrifiers by adding ammonia (either via direct ammonia/urea addition, or by heavy stocking with fish).  You can do this successfully by adding "Amquel" or "Prime", where the NH3 is combined into non-toxic compounds, or by frequent water changes - "_the solution to pollution is dilution_", or by waiting for the microbial biomass to complete "the cycle". 

It isn't that these methods don't work, they just introduce additional risks, mainly because ammonia is a toxic compound, even at low concentrations. We can't see the filter bacteria, and it is difficult to accurately measure the ammonia in solution with the test kits available to us, but we can see plants, how green they are, and quickly they are growing. 

Plants are an obvious visual indication of nutrient status, it's a KISS solution.

cheers Darrel


----------



## darren636

To a large extent, I agree Darrel

I am confident in my experiences now to know the signs of fish and plant distress.
 Beginners don't have that luxury though.
  I am vehemently against fish in cycling, because I've seen the legacy a poor cycle leaves.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





darren636 said:


> My 2ppm ammonia method happens to be backed by a professor of microbiology


 I'm not saying that "cycling", anaerobic plenums, having both aerobic and anaerobic processes in your filter media etc. don't work.  They all work, and you can find references from scientific journals for all of them. 

My argument  would be that if you have a series of simple, robust, low risk KISS solutions why would you want to do anything else? 
Why would you want to do things like adding ammonia, or having anoxic filter material, that adds extra risk and complexity?  

Personally I feel the same about adding CO2, why would you want to add a factor that has both the potential to kill all your fish and make your plants grow more quickly? For me it  is a no-brainer I want my fish a live and my plants growing slowly.

cheers Darrel


----------



## darren636

I like your method , Darrel
 It's progressive and simple.


----------



## darren636

My concern and observations are based on the old.   " neon, guppy, danio and goldfish- floating upside down in 5 litres of water' 
Help urgently !


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





darren636 said:


> I am confident in my experiences now to know the signs of fish and plant distress.
> Beginners don't have that luxury though.
> I am vehemently against fish in cycling, because I've seen the legacy a poor cycle leaves.


 Very true, nothing beats experience and I'm not recommending cycling with fish either. 

In some ways I want to get rid of "cycled" or "non-cycled" as categories, I want people to see them as part of a continuum, where you look at systems in terms of their potential to deal with ammonia (which has a huge oxygen demand), and the objects they put into their fish tanks (including fish) are seen with regard to their potential oxygen demand. 

If you can "guestimate" the balance between oxygen supply and demand you are sorted. Water management just becomes a case of making sure that oxygen supply always exceeds oxygen demand.

I want to promote simple, cheap methods of doing things that reduce the likelihood of things going wrong, particularly for beginners.

You are never going to cover all eventualities, but if you can cover the most likely ones hopefully more people will be successful and not give up.

People who have planted tanks start with a great advantage, and I try and persuade non-planted aquarium keepers that plants will make life a whole lot easier for them.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison

KISS works for me every time. I've never used ammonia. Deliberately poisoning a fish tank seems a bit counter intuitive to me. Just plant heavily and plug the filter in and...hey presto...a few weeks down the line you've got a cycled tank. If you add critters slowly, and don't dump a load in at the same time, you won't overload the system.


----------



## sciencefiction

I've cycled most of my tanks fishlessly using pure ammonia in a bottle. I dose to 2-3ppm max at a time as I don't see why people dose any higher.  It doesn't harm plants, neither it has caused algae while cycling. Once cycled, these tanks have never killed a fish because of how they are cycled.
I just don't see why is everyone so afraid of fishless cycling with ammonia. I think its just another thing to moan about without having experience doing it. But if you use soil instead as a substrate, I guess even easier as one doesn't need to dose every other day.


----------



## Michael W

I guess it is alright if you use ammonia because people will still get the desired result at the end, but for me because I am someone who doesn't like to go extra to achieve something that could also be done without much hassle even if it takes longer. I like to keep it safe and reach the destination. This is also why I stay low tech, I would hate to stress myself over CO2 and I know I am the kind of person who could not stick to a schedule.


----------



## Deisler

Thanks guys for your input! Can't wait to start my new 60P! Plants are coming next week, hopefully sooner..


----------



## drodgers

If you're added soil let it soak for a couple weeks drain and then flood the tank this will rid most of the toxins soil releases until acclimatized.
Then add fish and do daily 10% water changes for a week and you should be off to the races.


----------



## Tim Harrison

Like most things there are many routes to success. However, IME adding ammonia just isn't necessary, so why bother...?


----------



## sciencefiction

I disagree, ammonia is necessary to cycle a tank. The decision is which source of ammonia one is going to use.
This can be either 1.soil releasing ammonia, 2.bottled ammonia or 3.fish.  Personally, I'd only ever use choice 1 and 2.


----------



## brandon429

I disagree w science fiction, again the post implies without human intervention establishment of a bacterial colony couldn't occur. the three options for ammonia sourcing are incomplete.



While its true ammonia is needed, what's incorrect is that we must manually provide it or design for it. When you add water to a tank, ammonia gets in and we have already introduced nitrifiers as well, so the requisite is in fact merely adding water in a non sterile way, which includes every way we add water, and time.

time is the big factor here, all natural is slow compared to bottle bac and cleaning ammonia which can cycle a dry tank in three weeks.  but that doesn't mean a cycle waits to begin until we allow it or initiate it at all.

lets have some thread fun.   if anyone takes an aquarium and fills it with untreated tap water and a few kilos of red bricks, then comes back in 5 mos to test for nitrification abilities and small amounts of ammonia can be oxidized into nitrate, how did that occur (it does, someone test and post back)?

how did ammonia get in?

Where did nitrifying bacteria come from?

The bacteria got in by many sources, and ammonia got in as well, plus as the months went by ammonia kept getting in, even though we just added water to bricks...lets review how that occurs. whos first 

ill start. what happens to about six million colonies of mixed heterotrophic bacteria that came off our hands and into the brick tank as we added water and positioned the bricks? in the presence of water they bloomed temporarily but died off since they weren't primarily aquatic in adaptation. What did that mass of bacterial protein become? trace ammonia.  thats way #4 there are many to go.


what starts a cycle is adding water.  puddles of standing water in the street begin a cycle within 20 hours of simply standing. even some oil slicks from car waste and used cigarette butts as substrate wont stop it.  bacteria always find a way and a source.


----------



## ajm83

brandon429: I have no doubt that is true, but what is the relevance to our tanks where we want to get the tank as quickly as possible to a point where there is enough bacteria to process the ammonia produced by our fish?


----------



## Michael W

ajm83 said:


> brandon429: I have no doubt that is true, but what is the relevance to our tanks where we want to get the tank as quickly as possible to a point where there is enough bacteria to process the ammonia produced by our fish?



This statement reinforces the idea that ammonia should not be used to cycle a tank, especially to beginners. You should never cycle an aquarium with the mindset of introducing livestock as quickly as possible. Instead, you should think about the method and the process which you need to go about in ensuring that it does not go wrong and end up placing fish in an aquarium with or leading to unstable conditions. When you are rushing things or have the mindset of doing things quickly you are likely to have mistakes, this can potentially be dangerous especially if you use ammonia which is toxic to begin with.


----------



## ajm83

Michael W said:


> This statement reinforces the idea that ammonia should not be used to cycle a tank, especially to beginners. You should never cycle an aquarium with the mindset of introducing livestock as quickly as possible. Instead, you should think about the method and the process which you need to go about in ensuring that it does not go wrong and end up placing fish in an aquarium with or leading to unstable conditions. When you are rushing things or have the mindset of doing things quickly you are likely to have mistakes, this can potentially be dangerous especially if you use ammonia which is toxic to begin with.



Sorry I don't want to argue but I really couldn't disagree more with that and your earlier posts. You talk about ammonia being used in cleaning products as if fishless cycling involves squirting a massive blob of product into the tank like you would use to clean a kitchen counter, when in fact it is 2-4PPM or thereabouts, so about 3ml or so for a 125L tank.

Completing the process as quickly as possible does not equate to rushing. Quite the contrary, since we are carefully monitoring the process. And we know by the end what the bacteria is capable of processing, and therefore that it is safe to add fish. Besides, quickly in context means 6 weeks or so. Compared to potentially several months of changing 50% of the water every day in a fish in cycle.

From your posts, your method sounds like:

add substrate and fill with water

leave tank for 'a few weeks'

add fish
Is that it?


----------



## Michael W

It is fine I don't see this as arguing more like a discussion into the methods in which we use, the pros and cons.

The way I go about in cycling a tank is adding substrate, and plant the tank, fill it with water and let the tank run for 2-3 weeks usually bat the end 3rd week I will have added some livestock. Note I do not add all of them at one point but I will still steadily add them over the course of time.

I have not used one single test kit of any kind, not because I know it is not accurate but because my father had did the same without problems, it was until the recent years when I joined this forum that I found out that they were not accurate. I have yet to encounter any problems which this method. I have successfully setup shrimp tanks and fish tanks using the same method.

I am no good with scientific knowledge so I can't go into details that Clive and Darrel and others can but from a empirical point of view I have been successful. Perhaps I can try to share what I may think is contributing to the success.

Firstly, I believe that there are always bacteria in water, it could be from the tap, air borne, substrate etc and that some of these will eventually take hold in an aquarium and they will help in establishing the environment in which will help the fish and plants to live.

secondly, I believe that the plants are there to purify the environment and keep the water healthy so to say, this is by removing ammonia and other impurities. A lot of countries will use plants to help with water conditions and if they use it to rid things like ammonia then I don't see why I would want to put something in my aquarium where many strive to get rid of. I also believe in a strong connection between the plants, water and livestock. The plants help the fish and water through taking in impurities, making it safe for both bacteria and fish. They provide places for bacteria and micro organisms to grow for fish and shrimps to graze. Plants in my opinion are the glue in the aquarium keeping the whole thing together.

In all honesty I have no means of testing if the water is safe or not, I put my trust in allowing the plants to do the work in ensuring it is safe. The weeks that I leave the tank without fish and shrimps are there for the bacteria which I believe are in the water and the plants to establish themselves which will in turn do that water some good. I then faithfully introduce the livestock.

I understand that the phrasing of my previous posts may have caused misunderstanding, what I want to say is that when you said



ajm83 said:


> we want to get the tank as quickly as possible to a point where there is enough bacteria to process the ammonia produced by our fish?



It makes me feel that people like to achieve a cycled aquarium in the shortest time possible so they can add fish. I do not agree with that because I feel that it will only lead to potential failure. However, when you said 'quickly 'in context then I am assured that you do not treat the cycling process as a simple 'adding fish as soon as possible' process. In comparison to 6 weeks, my 2-3 weeks may in fact be considered quick or short, but the point I'm trying to make is I do not set out to cycle a tank quickly, in the cycling process I aim to grow the plants and establish it, it will the in turn reward me with what I would call good water. So to some disagree I think we misunderstood each other.

Michael.


----------



## sciencefiction

I agree with Brandon, but without starting with higher ammonia to establish a good colony of bacs, you'll be waiting months to cycle a tank the way you propose. Your tap water may have enough ammonia to cycle a tank, especially if you are in the states. Mine has minimal ammonia below 0.25ppm.  I'd have to wait on dying algae, melting plants, other dying bacs to produce ammonia and establish my tank and that will be too long. Then I have to introduce fish one by one in this scenario.
3-4 weeks is what it takes for me to cycle a tank from scratch using pure ammonia up to 3ppm. For some people it takes 4-8 weeks. The amounts of ammonia proposed to cycle a tank fishlessly, do not harm the bacteria. If you go over that limit, yes it does. I am not suggesting adding bleach to a tank but ammonia to max 2-4 ppm. And to those that think it's an effort buying ammonia, one ammonia bottle lasted me years and I still have some left. It's a one off purchase.

The reason I am arguing here is because people tend to introduce fish to uncycled tanks that can't yet process the load. Their plants are melting and dying and they have no idea of planted tanks.  They end up with fish that if not dying, start becoming diseased, don't last 6 months down the line as a consequence and all is blamed on fish shops selling them sick/weak fish or being unlucky when it's all because of the unstable environment they were introduced to.

If you are a beginner, you'll hardly know how to grow plants in order to rely on them to handle the bioload. So the cycling period, whether with ammonia, or with soil producing ammonia, gives you time to read, learn about tanks, plants and fish, learn about patience, and learn about the nitrogen cycle and how to grow healthy plants.  End result is healthy fish and a beautiful tank.  I respect the idea of just using plants to cycle a tank and handle the bioload before bacteria is established, but that's not for beginners, Look around here, many experienced aquarists have a rough start with plants. Until you get your plants growing, don't think about adding fish.

So in no way is anyone advocating adding fish to an non-established tank. I just know that whether I have a planted tank or not, at the end of the cycle using pure ammonia, I can add fish safely without fear for them breaking down with diseases.  Yet, for some sensitive fish its still best to wait several months regardless of how you cycled your tank but I am personally more confident adding fish to a tank that I know for sure processes so much ppm of ammonia to nitrates daily. Otherwise it's a guess work. I even dose ammonia for a couple of days to tanks I've used established media, just so you know it's all ok and about how much bioload they can handle.

Contrary to popular beliefs, observing the fish does not always give you an idea when for example the tank has spikes of ammonia/nitrites. Many fish still swim and eat as if nothing is going on. If they start having signs of being affected, it's normally too late. How do I know that? I've cycled tanks with fish as well. What are the signs, well it all depends, it could be a direct result such as gasping fish(high nitrites), rapid fin rot(from high ammonia), or it could be a disease outbreak such ich which is very common with newly introduced fish to unstable tanks, or hexamita, columnaris, etc.. which are triggered by unstable environment and will normally show up months after the fish were subjected to the said conditions.

So when one says my fish didn't die upon being introduced and I've cycled tanks like that all the time successfully, it's not what matters. What matters is if the fish you added to your said tank actually lasted their suggested life spans.
With my method, I have proven they did last their life spans and had healthy lives.  Ask yourself the same question. Go back in time when you introduced fish to your newly cycled/uncycled tanks regardless of method used and think how long did those first fish lived for afterwards and what they died from.
.


----------



## Michael W

I would like to also add why I feel like there it is contradictory to add ammonia. People add ammonia to cycle an aquarium, they want to build up a colony of a bacteria to to eat up the ammonia so to say. Yet once the tank is cycled, they then the proceed to rid ammonia from the aquarium. Is it me or are people adding something they try to keep out of an aquarium into it?

By adding ammonia into an aquarium are you not believing that there are bacteria in there that can process the ammonia in the first place? If that is true then how did it get there? It must have been there prior to adding the ammonia, so what is to stop the bacteria from spreading without the help or the lack of from the ammonia? Or do people believe that there was no bacteria in there but adding ammonia will magically encourage to bacteria to suddenly appear?

If you believe in the former then I don't see the need in adding ammonia.

Edit: SF I just read your arguments and I do respect them and see sense it them so I won't argue with you against that. I will say that not all of my fish have experienced their life potentials, there is no excuse for me to say a part from in hind sight buying fish that was out of my league which is a deadily mistake. Other than that, my fish such as Angelfish have lived to 5 years   before dying, now I hear that they can live to 10 given the proper care so if you take that in mind what is the average life span? I have had them breed and raised the fry before without problems. So I want to say that a part from the mistake mentioned just before I feel that I have been successful to an extent.


----------



## sciencefiction

Michael W said:


> Yet once the tank is cycled, they then the proceed to rid ammonia from the aquarium.



A cycled tank means the tank can convert for example 3ppm ammonia within 12-24 hrs to the final product nitrates. As mentioned it takes anything from 3-8 weeks depending to reach that point, by dosing that amount regularly and waiting for the ammonia/nitrite bacteria colonies respectively to establish. At the end you don't flush any ammonia because the tank handles that right away but you change the water before introducing fish as over the weeks the amount of nitrates build up is enormous.



Michael W said:


> By adding ammonia into an aquarium are you not believing that there are bacteria in there that can process the ammonia in the first place?



Of course there is bacteria. We don't introduce bacteria, but the bacteria you want to establish "eats" ammonia and oxygen and later nitrite and oxygen. If you don't feed it prior, the colony is too low to handle fish+fish food in a healthy, steady manner.


----------



## Michael W

I understand what you are saying and yes of course there should be a food source of the bacteria and I won't disagree with you on that, but that does not have to come from ammonia, like I said with the plants to help you, things can go smoother.

I acknowledge that some beginners won't know as much info than say members on here. But reading up on how to keep fish, plants and nitrogen cycle as you start a tank up is not acceptable in my opinion, obviously it is better than to not read into at all. I also, understand that not everyone will experience success with plants from the get go, me included no denial there.But I try to ensure that there are growths etc once the plant finishes melting and what have you before introducing fish.  

If you were to say that one could read up on fishkeeping as the tank is being cycled why not consider encouraging the beginner to experience the algae, melting of the plants and learn how to grow them first rather than concerning the cycle of the aquarium. Obviously, as mentioned even the pros will have bad experience with growing plants but that is just how it is, you will get the hang of it and find a method that works for you.

I like to place stress over growing plants first rather than keeping fish because it makes so much difference. What I have failed to mention before and in hind sight should have said is the experience from my father. He was not one to use plants in his tanks, he failed at it so badly. Since you said that we should evaluate the success based of growing the fish on to their full life span, I can say my dad failed because he rarely did. I followed his steps but a difference was plants, even at the start I didn't grow some plants well but ones like Anubias and Java fern are still present in my tanks from the start. I think plants are the game changer.

I dare say if a beginner can get the hang of growing plants first then they can achieve much more. Over the years I have came to the conclusion that we do not keep fish, we keep the water and plants are there to help us do so.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





ajm83 said:


> Quite the contrary, since we are carefully monitoring the process.


 That is really one of the problems, we can't accurately measure the amount of NH3/NH4+, NO2- or NO3- in our tanks. It would be a real help if we could, but we can't with the kit available to us, and even with techniques like ion selective electrode it is still difficult to get consistent results.   

It was because of the difficulties of getting meaningful measures of organic pollution in relatively clean water that techniques like the <*"5 day BOD"*> *& <"Dissolved oxygen measurement">* were developed. They need a dedicated lab., are time consuming and expensive, but there isn't an easy alternative. 

People are developing SONDS which use "*fluorescence spectrometry*" instead of BOD, which looks promising, but is still going to be an expensive process and out of reach of 99.9% of aquarists. 





> _Fluorescence intensities reported in arbitrary fluorescence units (AFU) were correlated with standard five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) values which were used as an indicator of the amount of biodegradable organic material present. Tryptophan-like fluorescence, which has been found to relate to the activity of the biological community, showed the strongest correlation with BOD5_.


". We are hoping to get one of these SONDS installed in a water course on campus, but it hasn't happened yet. 

Because accurate testing isn't really an option, mainly because there are just too many variables that can effect results, we need robust, simple techniques that don't require testing, and where we can rely on obvious visual signals to indicate water quality.  

If we have a reasonably large biomass of plants in active growth, we don't need to test for ammonia, nitrite or nitrate. The plants can mop up a huge amount of nitrogen and we have negative feedback loop where more nutrients leads to quicker growth. Plant growth rate and leaf colour gives a fine scale index of nutrient status, and we really don't need anything else. 

If you look at the techniques used in aquaculture and aquaponics, assuming you have enough oxygen, you can process huge amounts of ammonia. This is quantified in section 3.3 of "_*New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: A perspective on environmental sustainability*_". 

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

Darrel, just one question for you...Have you ever tried cycling a tank with ammonia?



dw1305 said:


> That is really one of the problems, we can't accurately measure the amount of NH3/NH4+, NO2- or NO3- in our tanks. It would be a real help if we could, but we can't with the kit available to us, and even with techniques like ion selective electrode it is still difficult to get consistent results.


 
Yes, we can measure it roughly to a point enough to monitor the progress of a fishless cycle using ammonia from a bottle. One will only argue on the contrary if they've never done this method of cycling a tank. And that's using liquid test kits for home use.


----------



## darren636

Can I just say, I'm really enjoying the views put forward, new tank syndrome desperately needs addressing in the hobby.

Another issue - apart from  readying a filter to cope with fish waste , is the environment of the tank itself .  
Bigtom alluded to this a couple of months ago.
 High ammonia can hinder the build up of beneficial bugs and critters . 
Perhaps the best fudge is to cycle a filter in a bucket and let the tank and plants mature by themselves


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> Have you ever tried cycling a tank with ammonia?


 Yes and no, I've never done it with a tank, but I started keeping fish again after our work on landfill leachate, a fairly nasty substance with plenty of heavy metals, ammonia etc. and a huge BOD.

Initially with the leachate you need to use chemical/physical processes to remove as many of the biocides as possible, followed by combined aerobic/anaerobic bacterial systems to reduce the levels of ammonia.

By the time the leachate has passed through these primary and secondary processes it is still much more polluted than even the most filthy tank water would be, but you can improve the quality of it by phytoremediation with plant/microbe systems.

Once you are dealing with "clean" water biological filtration is really then all about oxygen, for all practical purposes you can ignore everything else. We can measure dissolved oxygen levels with a DO probe (and we used to do this), but realistically in a system with plants and a large gas exchange surface you can deal with a huge bioload and you don't need to measure oxygen or nitrogen levels.

On the <"landfill"> tertiary leachate treatment is done in a vertical flow reed bed and 2 settling ponds, before the water is discharged in the the River Cary, and in the lab. it was via a series of planted over tank trickle filters on a re-circulating system. As well as periodic water testing (by the EA at Carymoor, and us in the lab.), we used fairly sensitive bioassay organisms as a "canary" and also microbiological techniques.

When I started keeping fish again I just applied the same techniques, but used them to keep the water as clean as possible, rather than starting with dirty water and trying to clean it up.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction

You can introduce as many critters as you like after the tank is cycled. The likes of daphnia may not like the cycling process but I've had a thriving population of seed shrimp while doing a fishless cycle with ammonia. They seems to have been feeding on the layer of driftwood dust that fell off and was decomposing. Some critters are tough.
In an empty tank with just filters and water you won't get any critters regardless of whether you dose ammonia or not as they've nothing to feed on.
Plus in a tank that can't handle the current bioload for whatever reasons, the ammonia will spike as ammonia keeps getting produced whether it gets processed partially or not, so no guarantee of establishing critters naturally.


----------



## ajm83

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,  That is really one of the problems, we can't accurately measure the amount of NH3/NH4+, NO2- or NO3- in our tanks. It would be a real help if we could, but we can't with the kit available to us, and even with techniques like ion selective electrode it is still difficult to get consistent results.
> cheers Darrel


Hi Darrel,
I know the nitrate tests are problematic for various reasons, but what's the issue with the others?

I've tested my own API ammonia kit, using RO/DI 0 tds water, mixed with varying quantities of KleenOff 9.5% ammonia and it was pretty much bob on up to 8 PPM. The zero reading is the only that we need anyway for a fishless cycle, (anything other than a clear yellow means 'not ready yet'). 



darren636 said:


> Can I just say, I'm really enjoying the views put forward, new tank syndrome desperately needs addressing in the hobby.


Agreed.


----------



## sciencefiction

Michael W said:


> If you were to say that one could read up on fishkeeping as the tank is being cycled why not consider encouraging the beginner to experience the algae, melting of the plants and learn how to grow them first rather than concerning the cycle of the aquarium.



Michael, I did encourage beginners to learn/experience everything while "cycling" the tank, whether cycling without plants or growing your plants at the same time.  By cycling I mean making sure the produced/ added ammonia is consumed in a timely manner. How you achieve that depends on choice and experience. It could be done, as already mentioned, in several ways..

If you don't try to understand anything about the nitrogen cycle itself, you'll hardly ever understand what role plants have into it either. It's like driving blindfolded, you may get there eventually but question is whether you'll get there unharmed.

To establish a planted tank you'll need minimum 3 weeks too before starting with fish. Plants most of the time needs to adapt before they flourish if they ever do in the environment they are given.  Your method of just running the tank with water and filters also suggests 3 weeks time frame and then introduce fish slowly. My method suggests minimum 3 weeks using ammonia until processed in a timely manner.  So what's the difference in general time wise? None. The difference is the method and the stability of the immediate result.

When I was a kid of average age which was more than 25 years ago, I kept fish for years without ever even knowing what ammonia is and that fish actually produce it and what happens to it,  but I knew the smell of it is no good sign.  I knew I had to age the water before adding to the tank because my mom used to do that with drinking water and I assumed if we humans have to wait for something to evaporate, then fish must too. It was me being a child and applying logic as a child. So I had no clue it was about waiting for chlorine to evaporate. I didn't understand the significance of it either.
I also knew that if my tanks goes cloudy, something is wrong. This happened a lot when the tank was overfed,  I had no idea why but I knew it's bad because my fish died when it happened. I kept a couple of baby carps at some stage and presumed initially that if we use bread when catching them with fishing rods, then I must feed them bread too 

I tried to keep plants many times and I had no idea why they kept dying.  This was the time with no internet access and all my friends were my age and knew about fish as much as I did. I doubt it, even if I was encouraged to keep plants first, I would have got the message why and figure how to keep them myself unless I went to the library and got a book which never crossed my mind back then .
My mom also encouraged me to scrub the tank with soap every so often, imagine ,  which eventually, I figured myself, was a bad thing after again I killed fish.

I know these days people are not as stupid as I was back then but some people still jump into fishkeeping without learning the basics first and then subject fish to their negligence and lack of knowledge. People with lack of knowledge about ammonia and nitrite, what happens in a tank and how they can harm fish, jump in medicating their tanks for fluke medications when fish start gasping because of nitrite caused blood poisoning, or with finrot and antibacterial medications when they fish are suffering from ammonia burns. I've seen people do this numerous times.

So I suggested learn, whichever way you want but which doesn't involve subjecting poor fish to suffering.  Once you have the needed knowledge, it gets easier, and you can take risks because you can anticipate what can happen and know how to rectify it or prevent it.   Until your reach that point of knowledge, its a bumpy road no matter which direction you take first.

I am not here to argue what is best. All I tried to say over several long posts is that I have not killed a fish or caused a fish to get sick by doing a fishless cycle with ammonia prior to introducing fish. It's a valid method of cycling a tank without harming the future environment.
Plants also love ammonia. The only reason we don't dose ammonia in a tank with fish is because we'd kill the fish, not the plants. Ammonia is a source of nitrogen for plants.

Other than that I agree that there are many ways of achieving an established tank. As long as that works for achieving a healthy tank for the fish introduced, then I am totally for it.   I personally wanted to stress on the fact that fish are tough and can suffer through a lot we humans subject them too unknowingly, but will eventually pay the ultimate price one way or another.


----------



## ian_m

ajm83 said:


> I've tested my own API ammonia kit, using RO/DI 0 tds water, mixed with varying quantities of KleenOff 9.5% ammonia and it was pretty much bob on up to 8 PPM


You've hit the home hobby test kit nail on the head. The test kits read fine if using RO water and one chemical, as you have found out.

However the home hobby kits are greatly affected by what else is in the water. eg hardness of water can be affect NO3 test kits reading (and chloride in some kits), NO3 can affect DkH reading, organic acids affect other readings, thus in reality making any testing of tank water using these kits rather meaningless.

Just because your test kit reads 0ppm ammonia with your tank water doesn't necessarily mean the actual ammonia level is zero.


----------



## brandon429

and the most shocking part is that an api kit would ever indicate zero instead of .25 

google search returns show api constantly indicating free ammonia from things like distilled water or cycled tank samples. this caused many an unnecessarily long cycling thread!


----------



## sciencefiction

Ian, for fishless cycling you need just an ammonia and a nitrite test kit.  We all know nitrate test kits and others are affected by many things and don't give near accurate results. Especially nitrate during fishless cycling because the tests kits normally convert all nitrates to nitrites first to give you the reading for nitrates so if nitrites are present in a tank the test kit will always read nitrates too.
But for purposes of figuring out whether the tanks have started processing ammonia and nitrites at a fast enough rate, the ammonia and nitrite home test kits work pretty well.

Take some tank water from your established tank. Test it with your test kit. I am pretty certain it will show a reading below 0.25ppm with almost any liquid test kit on the market.  Then add 2ppm ammonia to that same water by using prior calculations based on the strength of ammonia used.  Test again and you'll be surprised how close result the test will show compared to your calculated dose.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all, 





ajm83 said:


> I've tested my own API ammonia kit, using RO/DI 0 tds water, mixed with varying quantities of KleenOff 9.5% ammonia and it was pretty much bob on up to 8 PPM.


It is pretty much like "ian_m" says, the problem is interference from other ions, it isn't as bad for cations as it is for anions, but there are still problems. You should actually find the test for NO3 will be accurate if you use RO and KNO3 etc.

I always use the photocopy analogy, where the copier can reproduce primary colours, but as soon as you are into shades of mauve, pink and green they all come out the same colour.

The only parameter I test semi-regularly is conductivity, which isn't particularly useful, but is about the only test or meter when you can dip it in and get a reproducible reading.

I'm not against testing or test kits, if you really could dip a meter in and get levels of all the nutrients it would be really useful. There is actually some analytical equipment that will cover nearly all ions, but it is <"Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry">, and even that experiences some problems with ion interference.

Partially my reasons for wanting to be a better fish keeper this time was that the first time I kept fish was before the WWW and I used to kill them off with sickening regularity. This time has been better, and I've still managed to kill my fish in a variety of interesting ways, but water quality hasn't been an issue. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## ajm83

ian_m said:


> You've hit the home hobby test kit nail on the head. The test kits read fine if using RO water and one chemical, as you have found out.
> 
> However the home hobby kits are greatly affected by what else is in the water. eg hardness of water can be affect NO3 test kits reading (and chloride in some kits), NO3 can affect DkH reading, organic acids affect other readings, thus in reality making any testing of tank water using these kits rather meaningless.
> 
> Just because your test kit reads 0ppm ammonia with your tank water doesn't necessarily mean the actual ammonia level is zero.



I did mention that nitrate tests are rubbish, but I don't agree that makes entire test kits meaningless.

It's a bit like my car still optimistically saying "15 miles left" on its fuel display when I know for a fact that the tank is completely empty. This doesn't mean that I stop using the fuel display completely and instead rely on a gut feeling 'I filled my car up about two weeks ago so it's probably alright'.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,





ajm83 said:


> This doesn't mean that I stop using the fuel display completely and instead rely on a gut feeling 'I filled my car up about two weeks ago so it's probably alright'.


 The original ideas were developed on hunches, some stood the test of time, some didn't. 

I'm not claiming all my original ideas have worked, as an example before joined this forum and some one had told me that EI worked, I'd have told them they were deluded, but you have to learn from experience. It isn't for me, but a lot of people follow the rules for EI in their tanks with stunning success.

But if you look through this forum there are a lot of people being successful with long term low tech. set-ups, using simple KISS techniques, where fish that even experts regard as _



			difficult to keep
		
Click to expand...

_ are breeding etc. 

I'm not trying to diminish their role in these successes, but tank architecture, planting etc must at least play a minor role.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Michael W

I guess at the end of the day there are both arguments for and against any method and that nothing is perfect for anyone due to various factors. We all want to achieve is a safe environment for our fish and shrimps. As long as we arrive at that goal then you can choose whatever method suits you. While I personally don't suggest ammonia in a cycle, I will not fully dismiss that fact that it can work.

Michael.


----------



## Tim Harrison

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, The original ideas were developed on hunches, some stood the test of time, some didn't.
> 
> I'm not claiming all my original ideas have worked, as an example before joined this forum and some one had told me that EI worked, I'd have told them they were deluded, but you have to learn from experience. It isn't for me, but a lot of people follow the rules for EI in their tanks with stunning success.
> 
> But if you look through this forum there are a lot of people being successful with long term low tech. set-ups, using simple KISS techniques, where fish that even experts regard as are breeding etc.
> 
> I'm not trying to diminish their role in these successes, but tank architecture, planting etc must at least play a minor role.
> cheers Darrel


So often there is more at play than we're conscious of...call it fishy fingers...green fingers...natural ability...experience...whatever. Some people just have a knack, an instinct, and just go with it with amazing results. Whilst others can read everything there is to read on a subject and still fail miserably 

To quote Lex Luthor...
...'Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe'...


----------



## sciencefiction

dw1305 said:


> This time has been better, and I've still managed to kill my fish in a variety of interesting ways, but water quality hasn't been an issue.


 
When you mentioned "killed fish in a variety of interesting ways", I once killed a guppy accidentally while actually trying to test the water  I put a syringe in the tank to draw some water and while doing so I didn't see the guppies gathering around my hand.  I sucked up the tail of a beautiful mail guppy down to the base into the syringe   I felt awful for months just by the thought of it and what I had done. The poor thing didn't last a few hours afterwards.


----------

