# Cycling a heavily planted tank



## Gikas1 (1 Aug 2021)

Hey everyone I'm quite new in heavily planted aquaria but I owned a light planted one for several years now... So I've heard from several people/sources that I need to cycle my (not yet purchased) heavily planted 200ltr tank with ammonia or other sources (food, already cycled media etc.) and from several others that I do not have to because the plants will eventually (in about a month and a half) do the cycling themselves... All I have to do until then is dosing a reduced amount of ferts and doing a water change about 2 times a week (also something I think you shouldn't do that much while cycling with ammonia for example)... So what would you suggest I should do? Will adding ammonia kill my plants or will the ammonia-less cycle work and I just add a few fish at a time after leaving it a month or so?

Many thanks for any advice!


----------



## John q (1 Aug 2021)

HI and welcome to UKAPS, follow these links and they should answer your question.





						Beginner new tank question regarding cycling
					

Hey all, I'm completely new to this. I've been reading around and there seems to be many different opinions.   Is it possible for me to start a new tank without using ammonia or fish food to start the cycle? Currently, my new tank has stones and some good amount of plants in it. I'm also using...



					www.ukaps.org
				








						Cycling a new tank with the old one still running, anyway to speed it up?
					

Hi all,  I have a planted 120 litre tank with fish and shrimp, and I'm going to move all this over to a 200 litre tank. I was wondering if there way anyway of having a quicker/easier cycle by somehow using the old tank? I can't find anything on this anywhere but I thought if I put the new filter...



					www.ukaps.org


----------



## Tim Harrison (1 Aug 2021)

Welcome


----------



## Gikas1 (1 Aug 2021)

John q said:


> HI and welcome to UKAPS, follow these links and they should answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Many thanks for the threads! I've read them both in detail and my question is mostly answered! Just one more question... Will all of this work with a substrate like flourite or with soil only?


----------



## Gikas1 (1 Aug 2021)

Tim Harrison said:


> Welcome


Thanks!


----------



## John q (1 Aug 2021)

Truth is it works with any substrate,  if you use ada, seachem or similar soil then by default your tank will be ladend with ammonia, this may, or may not impeded the cycling process, however folks will tell you not to add ammonia, unless it's disguised in aqua soil.


----------



## Gikas1 (1 Aug 2021)

John q said:


> Truth is it works with any substrate,  if you use ada, seachem or similar soil then by default your tank will be ladend with ammonia, this may, or may not impeded the cycling process, however folks will tell you not to add ammonia, unless it's disguised in aqua soil.


So if I understand correctly... The bacteria inside the aquarium don't need the added ammonia because they will feed of the detritus supplied by plants as they grow with help from the oxygen supplied by the plants... Is that right?


----------



## John q (1 Aug 2021)

Well the answer to that question is probably above my pay scale, however somebody like Darrel @dw1305  will given you a far more detailed and scientific response.

The way I see it is fairly simplified,.. basic life forms (bacteria) require two key elements, they need to breathe (oxygen) and they need a food source (nitrogen) the oxygen comes via water circulation (your filter) and the food source, asumming you've an inert substrate will be provided by the decomposition of plant matter and anything else that happens to inhabit and decompose in the tank water. 

I must admit I'm somewhat of a convert, nature will find a way to stabilise itself, it really doesn't need the intervention of mankind to succeed.


----------



## dw1305 (1 Aug 2021)

Hi all, 


John q said:


> however somebody like Darrel @dw1305 will given you a far more detailed and scientific response.


I'll have a go.


Gikas1 said:


> So if I understand correctly... The bacteria inside the aquarium don't need the added ammonia because they will feed of the detritus supplied by plants as they grow with help from the oxygen supplied by the plants... Is that right?


Pretty much. 

*Traditional View*
The <"traditional view of the nitrogen cycle"> was a linear process, where numbers of very specific ammonia oxidising bacteria (AOA) had to build up before the number of nitrite oxidising bacteria would rise (in response to the elevated levels of nitrite (NO2)) and they would oxidise that NO2 to nitrate (NO3). 

You knew where you'd got to in the "cycle" by <"water testing"> for TAN (NH3/NH4+), NO2- and NO3-.  Plants, if they were mentioned at all, were seen as either unimportant or actively damaging in causing the cycle to "stall".

Personally I always had my <"doubts about cycling">.

*What we know now*
The specific ammonia oxidising bacteria <"don't actually occur in aquarium filters">, that <"plant/microbe biofiltration"> can process much larger bioloads than <"microbe only"> biofiltration and that oxygen is the prime metric in nitrification. 

It has really been the development of <"DNA based methods of looking for microbes"> that has fuelled the massive increase in our knowledge <"about aquarium nitrification">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Gikas1 (1 Aug 2021)

Thank you all so much for your extremely informative responses I am completely covered now! 

I must say this is one of the most helpful aquarium forums I've been in and I wish I found it sooner as it would have saved me the headache haha


----------



## sparkyweasel (1 Aug 2021)

dw1305 said:


> Traditional View


Or, as I think of it; the silly new-fangled idea. I'm feeling old. 
Apart from that I agree totally.


----------



## Aqua360 (1 Aug 2021)

I literally never "cycle" tanks, I add plants, once they start growing, slowly add to the bioload and it's smooth sailing from there. 

I think a lot of problems occur from people overstocking their aquariums to huge proportions, while it is hard to gauge on individual cases, common sense is often sorely lacking.


----------



## Marcia (2 Aug 2021)

Aqua360 said:


> I literally never "cycle" tanks, I add plants, once they start growing, slowly add to the bioload and it's smooth sailing from there.
> 
> I think a lot of problems occur from people overstocking their aquariums to huge proportions, while it is hard to gauge on individual cases, common sense is often sorely lacking.


Sorry for jumping in the thread, but do you ever feel the need to test for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate? I do want to feel confident with planted aquarium system but sometimes I’m not sure if I’m doing enough? (enough plants? enough bioload? light? fertilisers? etc). it’s hard when you’re a beginner and you have no other experience… that’s how we fall prey to testing/cycling/buying products I guess… then I do a the whole lot of test and I honestly don’t know exactly what I’m reading? or maybe it’s just me? 🤔


----------



## Aqua360 (2 Aug 2021)

Marcia said:


> Sorry for jumping in the thread, but do you ever feel the need to test for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate? I do want to feel confident with planted aquarium system but sometimes I’m not sure if I’m doing enough? (enough plants? enough bioload? light? fertilisers? etc). it’s hard when you’re a beginner and you have no other experience… that’s how we fall prey to testing/cycling/buying products I guess… then I do a the whole lot of test and I honestly don’t know exactly what I’m reading? or maybe it’s just me? 🤔


I don't test at all, outside of TDS (total dissolved solids) and temperature. 

I stock lightly, and water change generously and regularly enough with enough plant biomass to not be worried. 

You can tell a lot about the health of your tank via the plants and more, dw1305 has a good thread on "the duckweed index" which is worth checking out.


----------



## aec34 (2 Aug 2021)

Marcia said:


> it’s hard when you’re a beginner and you have no other experience… that’s how we fall prey to testing/cycling/buying products I guess…


I know what you mean. When I got into planted tanks I did start with a test kit since I’d had an experience with poor fish keeping which still makes me feel guilty. I did find it useful at first as a way of thinking through what might be changing in the tank, rather than trying to chase ‘ideal parameters’. It made me learn about how complex water actually is  by then reading around what I was seeing. Now I just observe changes in the plants/algae and tweak things as needed, eg needs a clean, change lighting period, move away from window. My experience is also that there will be some plants you struggle to grow. And that doesn’t mean you’re necessarily doing everything wrong!


----------



## dw1305 (2 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


Marcia said:


> but do you ever feel the need to test for ammonia, nitrite, nitrate?


I used to test the water occasionally, I look after a lab. and we have the <"potential to test for most solutes">.


Aqua360 said:


> outside of TDS (total dissolved solids) and temperature.


Same for me now.

I think the first thing to say is that <"we aren't anti-testing">, and there are test kits and meters that give you <"accurate and repeatable results"> over the full range of fresh-water types you are likely to meet in the aquarium.

Whether testing offers any real advantage depends on the level of analytical kit you have access to, and how much time (and money) you want to spend. Nitrite (NO2-) is relatively straightforward to test for using colormetric methods, but there are issues with measuring both ammonia/ammonium (NH3/NH4+) and nitrate (NO3-), mainly to do with their solubility.


Aqua360 said:


> You can tell a lot about the health of your tank via the plants and more, dw1305 has a good thread on "the duckweed index" which is worth checking out.


Because of the problems with accurate water testing, I use a proxy to <"estimate nitrate levels">. Basically you have a floating plant and you observe <"its growth and leaf colour">, the aim is just to keep it green and growing. Originally I used Common Duckweed (_Lemna minor)_ for the_ <"__Duckweed Index__">, _but I now recommend Amazon Frogbit (_Limnobium laevigatum_) as my "Duckweed" of choice.

If you have time look at <"Few problems......."> (from that post to the end of the thread and all the linked threads).

cheers Darrel


----------



## sparkyweasel (2 Aug 2021)

I stopped testing years ago and haven't looked back since.
Just done a quick calculation, - I have saved over £4000 with no downside. I wish I'd put the money in a savings account every time I would have been buying test kits. 

I tested every Wednesday. What if there had been an ammonia spike on a Friday? Testing wouldn't have told me about it, or prevented it, or helped to fix it.

What if a fish looked sick, but without any obvious parasites etc?
I could test for ammonia; if positive - change some water and look for sources of pollution.
If negative, test for nitrite;  if positive - change some water and look for sources of pollution.
If negative, I still don't know what's wrong, but something must be, - therefore change some water and look for sources of pollution.

Or I could save time and money; fish look ill? Change some water and look for sources of pollution.


----------



## tam (2 Aug 2021)

I think it depends on what your routine too - for example if you are doing big regular changes, your water is going to be close to tap plus your ferts. If you are not doing such big changes (often lower tech too) you might find testing, at least at first for nitrate will give you a sense for whether your water change routine is keeping things stable (nitrate staying stead) or needs a bit more doing (nitrate gradually rising). I would say testing is more likely to be helpful in the beginning, and less so once you and the tank have established the routine and how that tank runs.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


sparkyweasel said:


> Just done a quick calculation, - I have saved over £4000 with no downside.


I think the £4000 is the downside, not for you, but for the business model that the vendors use.

They are selling products that they <"know are useless">, or in some cases actively damaging. I've got a jaundiced view, but I think that the whole business edifice rests on keeping people teetering on the brink of <"real (or imagined) disaster">. I'm sure in the long term <"a bit of honesty"> would be better for all concerned (fish-keepers, LFS, product manufacturers) because people wouldn't stagger from disaster to disaster and would actually enjoy their fish and aquariums, and thus be much more likely to stay in the hobby in the long term.  

I hope to see us reach the "_sunlit uplands_", but I don't think it is a foregone conclusion.

cheers Darrel


----------



## John q (4 Aug 2021)

dw1305 said:


> They are selling products that they <"know are useless">, o


Ada springs to mind.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Aug 2021)

Hi all,


John q said:


> Ada springs to mind.


I think with most things you can argue about aesthetics and product quality, but with fertilisers (if you exclude the bottle) you can't, because every potassium ion (K+) is the same as every other one, there aren't any special deluxe ADA ones.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Marcia (7 Aug 2021)

Thank you everyone for replying my question about testing. Sorry for my late reply. I've read all the info from the links and bought some Tropica Salvinia Auriculata as the shop didn't have any Amazon Frogbit. I was away for 5 days and the plants just flourished without me fussing and tweaking things all the time! We've now added 7 Green Tetras and 7 Cardinal Tetras to join the existing 7 Neocaridina blue dream shrimps. I'm a bit nervous about not doing a test now that I've increased the bio load. Could you please tell me what are the things I should do or look for now that I've added the fishes (without testing)? Thanks again.


----------



## _Maq_ (30 Jun 2022)

I'm a foreigner, so pardon me for _learning English_ this way...
What is the meaning of the word CYCLING? Is it
(a) the period after establishing the tank when the microbial community is not yet developed, or
(b) active measures (adding ammonia etc.) we take to achieve that goal?


----------



## Hanuman (30 Jun 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> I'm a foreigner, so pardon me for _learning English_ this way...
> What is the meaning of the word CYCLING? Is it
> (a) the period after establishing the tank when the microbial community is not yet developed, or
> (b) active measures (adding ammonia etc.) we take to achieve that goal?


Cycling is a generic term for the nitrogen cycle in general terms. So basically your tank is cycled once ammonia and nitrite read 0. I purposefully omitted nitrate. 
How you cycle the tank is a different debate.


----------



## _Maq_ (30 Jun 2022)

Hanuman said:


> ... basically your tank is cycled once ammonia and nitrite read 0.


So it seems to be the same as in my country - all attention is devoted to nitrogen and other substances and microbial processes are ignored, right?
Then, how I am to call gradual _development of the microbial community as a whole_ (of which nitrifiers constitute usually less than 1-2 per cent)?


----------



## aec34 (30 Jun 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> What is the meaning of the word CYCLING?


I think this is an excellent question, and in truth it seems to mean different things to different people.


_Maq_ said:


> how I am to call gradual _development of the microbial community as a whole_


I think of this as my tank ‘maturing’.


----------



## Hanuman (30 Jun 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> So it seems to be the same as in my country - all attention is devoted to nitrogen and other substances and microbial processes are ignored, right?
> Then, how I am to call gradual _development of the microbial community as a whole_ (of which nitrifiers constitute usually less than 1-2 per cent)?


I think you are confusing two concepts. The nitrogen cycle, or as we call it "cycling a tank" is merely making sure that you don't have ammonia and nitrite. That's about it and I think that's pretty much universal. However, a cycled tank doesn't mean it is mature in any way, and it can take several months for a tank to reach a good level of maturity. Some will even claim years. This said, it doesn't mean you can't add fish once the cycle is just finished and the tank is still immature. You still need to be careful and go progressively. We usually refer to the nitrogen cycle in reference to living creatures (fish, shrimps etc) in general as it can be deadly to them. The term maturity is more for the overall state of the tank. Some shrimp breeders/owners will even claim that cycling alone the tank is not enough and it needs a certain level of maturity to receive inhabitants.


----------



## dw1305 (30 Jun 2022)

Hi all, 


_Maq_ said:


> What is the meaning of the word CYCLING? Is it
> (b) active measures (adding ammonia etc.) we take to achieve that goal?


Cycling just usually refers to a binary divide between "not cycled" and "not fish safe" and "cycled" and "fish safe".  Have a look at <"Dr Timothy Hovanec's comments about Bacterial supplements">. 


_Maq_ said:


> (a) the period after establishing the tank when the microbial community is not yet developed,


Personally <"cycling isn't"> a term, <"or a concept">, I'm very happy with.  I'm much keener on the idea of <"Seasoned Tank Time">, which takes a more holistic approach. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## _Maq_ (30 Jun 2022)

Hanuman said:


> Some shrimp breeders/owners will even claim that cycling alone the tank is not enough and it needs a certain level of maturity to receive inhabitants.


I'm a plant keeper and I say the same: Plants should not be introduced before six to eight weeks, and fish & shrimps even later. Because, ammonia & nitrite ore only two among many harmful substances which appear when the microbial community is not yet developed and stabilized.
Of course, it is actually a matter of many months, and we can argue that it's a never ending process. That's true. But six weeks work for me just fine. I've lowered the loses substantially.


----------



## Yugang (30 Jun 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> Of course, it is actually a matter of many months, and we can argue that it's a never ending process


This is fascinating, as for practical purposes we often assume that when the tank is cycled, clean water, good light, Macro's, CO2 and Micro's we are all good.

I read 'Ecology of the Planted Aquarium', Diana Walstad, and it openened by eyes in how it highlights topics we often overlook such as allelopathy, or bacteria. There is so much going on with plants, that we don't realise or value.

Of course it is well known that 'immature tanks' go through phases with algae, that later disappear. What interest me is whether we have examples and practical evidence that 'maturity' (we need then also get more clarity what it actually means) has a real impact on plants and is not just a theoretical concept or even myth.  Are we on this forum having a blind spot for 'maturity', or is it just a too vague concept to be of practical relevance for the hobby.

@_Maq_  thank you for inspiring some real interesting new insights (perhaps also some new myths, that we are ready to debunk right away ) with your posts.


----------



## Hanuman (1 Jul 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> I'm a plant keeper and I say the same: Plants should not be introduced before six to eight weeks,


Well that is arguable in my opinion. As much as adding animals in an uncycled tank can be deadly to them, it is hardly the case for plants in an uncycled or immature tank. Obviously if you have a soil releasing lots of ammonia, it can be toxic to plants and certain very specific species will melt to the core, but decades and decades of people having planted tanks have shown that you can plant from day one without catastrophic issues for the plants. In fact it is part of making the tank mature faster so I don't see why one would need to wait 6 or 8 weeks to introduce plants. Obviously there is nothing wrong with doing that but to me that's totally unnecessary and does not provide any outstanding benefits.


----------



## _Maq_ (1 Jul 2022)

@Yugang & @Hanuman, let me develop my arguments a bit further.


Hanuman said:


> Obviously if you have a soil releasing lots of ammonia, it can be toxic to plants and certain very specific species will melt to the core, but decades and decades of people having planted tanks have shown ...


The crucial point here is that *ammonia & nitrite are only minor part* of the matter. An ideally 'matured' tank means that microbial community is complete and stable. That means that whenever a chemically unstable substance appears it is immediately transformed into another, a stable one. _Unstable_ means in biochemistry quite the same as _reactive, aggressive, harmful, poisonous_. Also, '_an energy source_'.
Take ammonia and nitrite as examples. Both can be easily oxidized with a net gain of energy. Yet we have to wait for specific microbes to arrive and propagate. Similarly, if decomposition of organic matter is incomplete, many unstable substances remain waiting for particular microbes to decompose them further. We cannot measure it as easily as ammonia and nitrite, so we ignore them. (The only cumulative measurement of this is biological and chemical oxygen demand, BOD, COD.) But they are no less harmful, namely to the plants. And high oxygen demand can lead to low oxygen level, as well, which too is dangerous for plants.
Naturally, I'm well aware that the common practice is different and largely successful. Easy going and rapidly growing stem plants, right? But I'm speaking about more demanding plants, and I don't inject CO2. I seek challenge. Easy plants are no challenge to me. As such, I've found this extra patience - six to eight weeks without plants - as clearly rewarding, decreasing my losses in newly established tanks.

One more note. It is generally believed that plants are beneficial for maturing the tank. Well, yes, they can uptake ammonia and nitrite. But, as a rule, they *do not uptake* partially decomposed organic matter. In fact, it is harmful to them, and they cannot take part in decomposition.
Plants can be beneficial to microbes by creating oxidized rhizosphere, that's true. But my experience tells me that it's better to wait till the microbes develop, and only then improve the state of affairs a bit with rooting plants.


----------



## dw1305 (1 Jul 2022)

Hi all,


Yugang said:


> What interest me is whether we have examples and practical evidence that 'maturity' (we need then also get more clarity what it actually means) has a real impact on plants and is not just a theoretical concept or even myth. Are we on this forum having a blind spot for 'maturity', or is it just a too vague concept to be of practical relevance for the hobby.


I think the problem is that maturity is a pretty difficult factor to quantify. I'm convinced it exists and it is a good thing, but I'm not convinced you can measure it.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (1 Jul 2022)

Hi all,


_Maq_ said:


> Well, yes, they can uptake ammonia and nitrite. But, as a rule, they *do not uptake* partially decomposed organic matter. In fact, it is harmful to them, and they cannot take part in decomposition.
> Plants can be beneficial to microbes by creating oxidized rhizosphere, that's true. But my experience tells me that it's better to wait till the microbes develop, and only then improve the state of affairs a bit with rooting plants.


I think that the uptake of fixed nitrogen and supply of oxygen (to both substrate and water column) must outweigh any disadvantages in adding plants before the microbial assemblage is fully mature. 

I always add a floating plant right from the start, and I honestly can't see any negative side to this.

cheers Darrel


----------



## _Maq_ (1 Jul 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I always add a floating plant right from the start, and I honestly can't see any negative side to this.


If you mean plants like_ Limnobium_, with floating leaves, they uptake ammonia in large amount but they don't oxidize the water. They exchange all gases at the _upper_ side of their leaves. But they may exude organic substances through their roots which possibly serve as a colonization area for heterotrophic bacteria.


----------



## dw1305 (1 Jul 2022)

Hi all,


_Maq_ said:


> If you mean plants like_ Limnobium_, with floating leaves, they uptake ammonia in large amount but they don't oxidize the water. They exchange all gases at the _upper_ side of their leaves.


Yes that is right, all the stomata are on the upper surface.

<"This is a _Potamogeton_ sp."> but _Limnobium (_or any other plant with floating leaves_)_ would look similar. You can see the distribution of the stomata in the leaf cross section and they are all in the upper (adaxial) leaf surface.

It is actually the <"aerial advantage">, the <"access to atmospheric gases">,  that makes floating plants so effective at reducing fixed nitrogen levels and also why you can add them <"to an immature tank">. 

Their photosynthetic surfaces have access to 20% oxygen and 420 ppm CO2  and can't be choked by algae.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Yugang (1 Jul 2022)

_Maq_ said:


> Plants should not be introduced before six to eight weeks, and fish & shrimps even later





_Maq_ said:


> But my experience tells me that it's better to wait till the microbes develop, and only then improve the state of affairs a bit with rooting plants.


So do we agree that 'plants' should read 'the most delicate and sensitive plants', yet otherwise that introducing plants early in an aquarium will be beneficial and speed up the process of developing a mature system?

Reading the Ecology of the Planted Aquarium', Diana Walstad, I was fascinated by allelopathy, the biological / chemical 'warfare' between plants, including algae. I am just wondering if the success of the most sensitive plants could be dependent on how their chemical  and biological environment (water, soil) is influenced by competing other species close to them.


----------



## NatalieHurrell (2 Jul 2022)

sparkyweasel said:


> Or, as I think of it; the silly new-fangled idea. I'm feeling old.
> Apart from that I agree totally.


Likewise!


----------



## _Maq_ (2 Jul 2022)

Yugang said:


> So do we agree that 'plants' should read 'the most delicate and sensitive plants', yet otherwise that introducing plants early in an aquarium will be beneficial and speed up the process of developing a mature system?


I'd rather say that *all* plants should be introduced after six or more weeks (fishless cycling), but hardy plants *can withstand* earlier introduction. And I still stick to my opinion that plants can hardly help maturing the tank. In short - microbes first, plants next.
Yet I admit this is *not an iron rule* based on exact natural laws. It's experience, observation, based on some basic biology. It works for me. But I'm still learning.


Yugang said:


> Reading the Ecology of the Planted Aquarium', Diana Walstad, I was fascinated by allelopathy, the biological / chemical 'warfare' between plants, including algae. I am just wondering if the success of the most sensitive plants could be dependent on how their chemical  and biological environment (water, soil) is influenced by competing other species close to them.


I don't add much weight to allelopathy. Reports on it are too scarce both within hobbyist community and in literature.


----------



## dw1305 (2 Jul 2022)

Hi all, 


_Maq_ said:


> And I still stick to my opinion that plants can hardly help maturing the tank. In short - microbes first, plants next.


I just think it is always going to be a <"synergistic process">, "plant / microbe" nitrification.  I think there is also the effect of the <"ammonia loading on the microbial assemblage">. Personally I'm always going try and avoid the <"Mbuna scenario">.


_Maq_ said:


> I don't add much weight to allelopathy.


I've got <"my doubts as well">. I've altered my position a little bit since 2014 and I think <"it probably does occur">, but I've no idea how important it is. 


dw1305 said:


> ......... Even if strict allelopathy (I'm also agnostic as to how important it might be) doesn't exist in terms of plants producing antimicrobial chemicals, it certainly <"exists in the rhizosphere"> where plants are actively altering the microbial assemblage to gain nutrients and using these microbial cohorts as soldiers in proxy wars with other plants.
> 
> It isn't surprising that <"antibiotics were isolated from soil bacteria">, cyanobacteria, actinomycetes, "fungi" etc have been waging biological war on each other for billions of years. That is partially why I'm agnostic about strict allelopathy.......



cheers Darrel


----------

