# Do I need to cycle a planted tank



## paulsballs (9 Jan 2017)

Hi I am totally new to aquascaping I have ordered a dennerle 60l cube full set up Wich comes with substrate and gravel lights and filter. I would like to do a low tech set up with a few shrimp just confused about cycling think maybe I have read to much info on the subject .


----------



## dw1305 (9 Jan 2017)

Hi all, 





paulsballs said:


> just confused about cycling think maybe I have read to much info on the subject


You don't need to "cycle" the tank by adding ammonia, it doesn't serve any useful purpose and may inhibit the development of an appropriate microbial community. 

I like to plant the tank and then leave it to "grow in". Have a look at <"Oxygen levels required..."> and linked threads. 

If you have actively growing plants you have "plant/microbe filtration", which is much efficient and flexible than "microbe only" biofiltration. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## CaptainC (9 Jan 2017)

Hi. Yes, the nitrogen cycle must be completed to ensure any waste products from fish or shrimp are converted into less harmful products by your filter.
Plants can remove a little ammonia but nowhere near enough to keep water safe for your livestock.
Please read about cycling and the nitrogen cycle.
Enjoy your tank, scaping and feel free to ask questions.


----------



## dw1305 (10 Jan 2017)

Hi all, 





CaptainC said:


> Plants can remove a little ammonia but nowhere near enough to keep water safe for your livestock.


This honestly isn't true, you get it a lot in cycling posts, but you only have to look at the scientific literature for ample evidence that "plant/microbe filtration" is much more efficient than "microbe only" bio-filtration.

A lot of people still see plants as a form of decoration, but they aren't, they are the single most important factor in biological filtration.

There are a couple of proviso's, you need the plants to be in active growth, and bio-filtration is much more efficient if plants have <"Diana Walstad's"> "aerial advantage" of access to atmospheric gas levels.

These are references from aquaculture, <"Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater using a constructed wetlands system">. <"Efficiency of aquatic macrophytes to treat Nile tilapia pond effluents">, but I have a lot more using constructed wetlands.

There is a more complete discussion of this in <"Best way to cycle a second filter.."> (and linked threads).

There are a number of reasons why plant microbe systems can deal with larger bioloads, but the main ones are that :

Plants directly uptake NH3/NH4+. NO2- and NO3-.
Plants create a much greater area for microbial colonisation.
Plants produce conditions in the substrate that <"support a greater diversity of organisms, and diversity creates stability">. 

Plants are net oxygen producers, and biological filtration is a oxygen dependent process.
cheers Darrel


----------



## CaptainC (11 Jan 2017)

Hey Darrel.
It would be interesting to see if anyone had actually managed in the real world,, outside of scientific literature/studies, has successfully managed to cycle their tank using only plants to keep non toxic levels of ammonia/nitrite. No argument that plants help uptake ammonia etc and, create conditions in substrate that promote growth of beneficial bacteria. Surely though that process will take time, I.e. A cycle, before it can support enough bacteria to keep toxic levels low enough for livestock?
Anyone out there done this, care to comment?
I honestly don't think I'd be willing to allow plants alone to keep levels to non toxic levels.
I'm certainly no scientist and have not tried this method.
Many thanks for the information, I'll read up on the subject and see what it's all about.


----------



## dw1305 (12 Jan 2017)

Hi all, 





CaptainC said:


> It would be interesting to see if anyone had actually managed in the real world,, outside of scientific literature/studies, has successfully managed to cycle their tank using only plants to keep non toxic levels of ammonia/nitrite.


No, <"it isn't a theoretical idea">, we do it <"all the time">. 

I've never "cycled" a filter with ammonia, there really isn't any point. We are interested in ammonia (and to a lesser degree nitrite (NO2-)) levels, because ammonia is toxic to animals, but in terms of the maturation of the tank it is much less relevant than the levels of dissolved oxygen. 





CaptainC said:


> Surely though that process will take time


The longer you can leave the tank planted before adding the fish the better. 

I like to leave the tanks for ~6 weeks, planted and running normally, but without any livestock, but you could potentially use a floating plant, like _Pistia_, and assuming you had a large enough biomass of plants, add the fish straight away.  





CaptainC said:


> I.e. A cycle, before it can support enough bacteria to keep toxic levels low enough for livestock?


The problem is with the cycling concept, there isn't a switch from "_not cycled and toxic_" to "_cycled and safe_" it is a continuum based on ability to deal with bioload. In the lab. you can quantify this as the <"Biochemical Oxygen Demand"> (BOD), and as a general rule if the oxygen supply exceeds the oxygen demand your tank is fish safe. 

If I was forced to keep fish in non-planted tanks I would use a wet and dry trickle filter, because of its large gas exchange surface. 





CaptainC said:


> I honestly don't think I'd be willing to allow plants alone to keep levels to non toxic levels. I'm certainly no scientist and have not tried this method.


I think a lot of people feel the same. Cycling has a huge mythology built up around it and it is very difficult to get to the truth.  





CaptainC said:


> to allow plants alone....


 In some ways that is the point, it isn't "_plants alone_", it is always "_plants and microbes_". "Plant/microbe" filtration is potentially about an order of magnitude more efficient than "microbe only filtration". 

cheers Darrel


----------



## TigerBarb (22 Jan 2017)

Interesting post and something I was not aware of before. It makes a lot of sense though when you read into some of those linked posts much moreso than artificially cycling a tank which I did originally with my setup. If I do end up completely reworking my setup I would definitely try the planted method rather than doing an artificial cycle.

I think that as helpful as enabling people with knowledge about cycling is, I remember a community I joined in with when I first got into fishkeeping and the community were very aggressive to any suggestion at all of deviation from the ammonia cycling method. Not always a good thing to be so closed minded.


----------



## dw1305 (23 Jan 2017)

Hi all, 





TigerBarb said:


> I think that as helpful as enabling people with knowledge about cycling is, I remember a community I joined in with when I first got into fishkeeping and the community were very aggressive to any suggestion at all of deviation from the ammonia cycling method.


It is just a really contentious issue, where a lot of the protagonists have entrenched positions and everybody knows that they are right.

I started on the "cycling posts" because I wanted to tell people about the advantages of planted tanks and I really had no idea how much ill feeling that they would provoke.

Adding ammonia is better than the "sacrificial fish" method that preceded it, but there is a still a failure (or unwillingness) to see that plants are a vital part of biological filtration, rather than tank decoration.

Have a look at @Akwascape's <"Windowsill Nature.....">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo (23 Jan 2017)

CaptainC said:


> It would be interesting to see if anyone had actually managed in the real world,, outside of scientific literature/studies, has successfully managed to cycle their tank using only plants to keep non toxic levels of ammonia/nitrite.



I'm completely with Darrel on this one.. It beats me, what all this cycling is about.. Till now i only builded tanks with inert substrates and actualy still have to encounter my first realy dangerous Ammonia or Nitrite peak.. And after all is setup than i look whats needed and still can put it in.

Using fertilized substrates and doing massive waterchanges to get rid of these peaks is not cycling, its depleting.. I never did it because it doesn't make so much sense to me, spend extra money to put so much extra in and then flush it out again with all the water changes. With all do respect.. Duh? Sorry?

It takes me 6 months from scratch to fully stocked as i want it.. And that still is moderately stocked.. Why all the hurry?

All that cycling fuss is imho a commercial make belief already roaming the hobby since the 1970's when about the first pots of freeze dried bacteria appeared on the lfs shellfs.. I used them and didn't use them and never realy saw a difference..


----------



## Tim Harrison (23 Jan 2017)

Adding ammonia to cycle a planted tank is simply unnecessary. This is especially the case if the low energy tank has a soil substrate. The ammonia given off during mineralisation is more than adequate to cycle a filter. Mine typically cycles in a week or so.


----------



## Aqua360 (23 Jan 2017)

I don't consider "cycling" anymore, I heavily plant from the get go; and add shrimp immediately with zero casualties, even in 10 litre tanks etc.

If doing fish I'd add slowly and only after 2-3 weeks, which is then more akin to normal cycling


----------



## JMorgan (24 Jan 2017)

There's an interestingly eccentric but very nice bloke on You Tube called LR Bretz (Lucas) with a fish room with 100+ tanks. He's been gradually removing all his filtration (excepting airstones and circulation pumps) over the last few months having realised that given healthy plant growth, it wasn't contributing anything. Pointing out that the surface area of the substrate + plants + hardscape IS the filter so long as water is circulating properly. So check out his channel if you want to see it happening in practice dozens and dozens of times. I should maybe add that he doesn't have any real pretensions to aquascaping, he's all about keeping "eco-systems". That said I do like his "algae tank" - I suspect I might be quite good at that!
Personally I just wait until my frogbit is spreading nicely to know I can start adding fish gradually.


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

I wasn't going to post at all in this thread because I'd cause another argument. But I used to cycle tanks with ammonia, especially when I was transitioning from small to large tanks...I had no choice as I was not moving the actual filters and they weren't going to do much in a tank way larger due to the way lower flow rate....The below tank is 1 year and 10 months old on the video and was cycled with all the plants you see in the video and ammonia dosing. It took about 4 weeks to cycle at which stage I moved all the fish from my small tanks. I did not use any old media, not even a small piece...I used tetra safe start....I got no algae during cycling(which was fishless) despite blasting the lights 8 hrs a day, and all the fish apart from the guppies, which lived their lives in there, were still alive when the tank broke 5 and a half years after set up. I never had a sick fish or issues with fish although I fully stocked the tank a month after set up....So waiting 6 months to fully stock a planted tank.....is just not feasible...



As some mentioned, if the tank has source of ammonia such as soil, there's absolutely no reason to dose ammonia. Having said that, I cycled my other 5 foot tank at the time with ammonia again first for a few weeks, then added the soil and plants... I had 0 spikes from get go. The only large tank I haven't cycled with ammonia so far is my latest pond to which I transferred all external, already cycled filters...And I still got fish scraping themselves being irritated by possibly mini ammonia/nitrite issues for the first few weeks though I never changed the bioload, just the size of the tank...

I am not saying you can't cycle a tank with just plants and slowly adding fish but its a choice, not a necessity and there's absolutely no negative effects to fish by cycling a tank fishlessly with ammonia, then adding fish. I have not tried the "slow planted method" so you can tell me the effect of putting fish in an uncycled, planted tank....


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

paulsballs said:


> Hi I am totally new to aquascaping I have ordered a dennerle 60l cube full set up Wich comes with substrate and gravel lights and filter. I would like to do a low tech set up with a few shrimp just confused about cycling think maybe I have read to much info on the subject .



To answer your original question, yes you do need to cycle the tank, whichever way suits you or you understand better.  If the tank has an initial source of ammonia such as that from soil substrates, let it run for several weeks just with plants, giving you time to aquascape it the way you want...If its an inert substrate tank, you've got to wait a long, long time for a sufficient cycle to go through due to lack of ammonia....unless your plants start rapidly melting giving off something for the bacteria to work on....In this case you can try the method of slowly adding bioload over the course of weeks, months..

If its a shrimp only tank, do not feed for a long time or you'll cause a spike(its the food that puts pressure on the bioload), then slowly start dropping some food every so often..When I added cherry shrimp to immature uncycled tank they stood still and were quite inactive..I could barely measure any ammonia but there was some lingering according to the test, enough to stress inverts..Having said that, I've had less issues adding shrimp to an uncycled tank than fish..Cherry shrimp in my opinion manage to survive a lot harsher conditions than any fish...I've come to this conclusion after sticking cherry shrimp in all sorts of bowls....So shrimp would not be my measure of planted tank being safe for inhabitants from the get go...The trick with uncycled shrimp tank is not to feed it at the start(providing the tank is well planted)....But if you want healthy shrimp....they need to be fed varied diet.  If you want them to multiply a lot, they need to be fed daily...


----------



## Tim Harrison (24 Jan 2017)

Aqua360 said:


> Will probably get flamed for this





sciencefiction said:


> I wasn't going to post at all in this thread because I'd cause another argument.


Haha...come on guys, you know there's always room on UKAPS for everyones opinion especially two well respected members like you both



Aqua360 said:


> I heavily plant from the get go; and add shrimp immediately with zero casualties, even in 10 litre tanks etc. If doing fish I'd add slowly and only after 2-3 weeks, which is then more akin to normal cycling


That's the way I've been doing it for nigh on 40 years; I was precocious, I started very young



sciencefiction said:


> But I used to cycle tanks with ammonia, especially when I was transitioning from small to large tanks...I had no choice


We forgive you


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

Tim Harrison said:


> We forgive you



Ha, ha. The irony is I'd still do it, only that I ran out of ammonia  If I ever set up another large tank, additional to what I have I am sure I'll be going for a bottle of ammonia first  The point is, I know exactly what it takes and how long it takes to cycle a tank fishlessly with ammonia, and that it will take the full bioload at once.... but I have no patience adding fish one by one over the course of weeks or months...it also increases the chances of introducing contagious fish diseases because there's bound to be one that is not healthy, after taking the risk of introducing different batches of fish from possibly different sources


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

"Silent cycling" with plants in enhanced substrate or inert, combined with possibly borrowed filter media from existing tanks , is how I roll.
If one already has an established ,mature tank, it makes next to no sense to start fishless cycling with ammonia.IMHO
No need to add fish one by one over week's month's with moderate to heavy plant mass and or seed material from already mature filter/tank.


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

roadmaster said:


> No need to add fish one by one over week's month's with moderate to heavy plant mass and or seed material from already mature filter/tank.



I agree roadmaster. Bu have you tried adding 50 fish in a tank with media borrowed from a smaller, although cycled, tank? Or add 8-10 mature clown loaches to a large uncycled tank with a piece of media from your 30 gallon tank? Plant mass needs weeks to pick up and grow, so planted or not planted, cycled with ammonia, or not,  one should wait weeks before adding critters...I just ensure I can add all fish at once...Plants take a few weeks to establish and start actively growing, before that they do nothing but pollute the tank...and that's providing that you do manage to get them grow fine soon enough...In this case this forum would not exist...


----------



## dw1305 (24 Jan 2017)

Hi all,





sciencefiction said:


> The point is, I know exactly what it takes and how long it takes to cycle a tank fishlessly with ammonia, and that it will take the full bioload at once..


This is really down to probability. I know that you can "cycle" your tanks using added ammonia without any problem at all, in fact people who keep tanks without plants, or substrate, are obliged to use this method, because they are entirely reliant on the nitrifying micro-organisms in their filter.

My point would be that keeping tanks without plants and substrate is an inherently unsafe method of keeping fish, because you have a single point of failure, the filter. You can mitigate for this, to some degree, by having a wet and dry trickle filter, but even then, as soon as the tank water stops entering the filter you have a positive feedback loop of  declining oxygen levels and rising ammonia levels, and fish death becomes inevitable.  





sciencefiction said:


> If its an inert substrate tank, you've got to wait a long, long time for a sufficient cycle to go through due to lack of ammonia....unless your plants start rapidly melting giving off something for the bacteria to work on...


This isn't strictly right. The problem is that it starts from the premise of a linear progression:

ammonia > nitrifying bacteria > cycle.

But we know that isn't true in the planted tank, it isn't a linear process, but a much more complex web of interactions including: plants, bacteria, archaea, oxygen and ammonia.





sciencefiction said:


> Plants take a few weeks to establish and start actively growing, before that they do nothing but pollute the tank...


 If you have a floating, or emergent, plants they aren't CO2 or oxygen limited, and they can very efficiently convert ammonia into plant tissue from the moment they are added to the tank. The capability of plants to assimilate fixed nitrogen is hugely under-estimated by most aquarists.

Plants are net oxygen producers, they take up NH4+, NO2- and NO3- and they produce a complex rhizosphere within the substrate. It is the plants and oxygen, and the micro-organism assemblages that they help foster, that are really important, not the level of ammonia.

As soon as your tank is planted it is an "ecosystem" and for ecosystems complexity builds resilience.

cheers Darrel


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

Yes,I have moved whole tanks of fish from smaller mature tanks to larger "uncycled tanks" with media from established filter ,or sponge filter,or bag of ceramic media that has been in donor tank for a few week's.
Have also moved whole large population's from existing larger tanks to brand new tanks same or larger in size.
Water change may be needed twice a week(or not per volume of water), until bacteria can re-produce but this does not take week's/month's but hour's with borrowed media.
Only initial bacteria population that takes more time to develop.
I am sorry your plant's take week's to begin growing ,but maybe this is more an issue with gardening/plant selection /method chosen for growing the weed's.
Maybe too much ammonia is detrimental to plant's as well as bacteria that we try to cultivate.?


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Maybe too much ammonia is detrimental to plant's as well as bacteria that we try to cultivate.?



When you add ammonia, plants grow quite fast. I have not experienced damage to plants by adding ammonia.  My issue with cycled tanks with plants is mostly due to iron and nitrogen deficiencies.



roadmaster said:


> Yes,I have moved whole tanks of fish from smaller mature tanks to larger "uncycled tanks" with media from established filter ,or sponge filter,or bag of ceramic media that has been in donor tank for a few week's.
> Have also moved whole large population's from existing larger tanks to brand new tanks same or larger in size.
> Water change may be needed twice a week(or not per volume of water), until bacteria can re-produce but this does not take week's/month's but hour's with borrowed media.



Any videos, pictures over the years of how your fish handled those tanks, with the inhabitants from start to finish? I can show you videos from day one to year five/six with the exact same fish still in the exact same tank...I am not being argumentative but I know what happens to fish subjected to any form of cycle in a tank from my own experience...




dw1305 said:


> My point would be that keeping tanks without plants and substrate is an inherently unsafe method of keeping fish, because you have a single point of failure,



I am not arguing about this either...never have..As you have noticed all my tanks are planted to some extent, whether I used ammonia or not to cycle them...


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

Seemingly I can't put my point across properly, but I'll presented here in a shorter way....My aim at doing what I've been doing is to never subject a single fish to even the minimum of spikes caused by non-established tanks, whether due to plants/microbial activity not doing their job early enough, or filters not cycled to a sufficient extent to handle the current bio-load they've been subjected to at any given time.. or both....Fish and the minimum of unstable conditions is a trigger for big troubles in the following weeks and actually months after you think the hard part, being the cycling, is over...

Increasing the bioload slowly carries several risks: you do not add a sufficiently big enough school for the spiecies of fish to feel secure from the start, causing stress, which leads to diseases. You add too many fish at once causing a temporary water quality issue that would stress not just the new fish but the ones that already went through a cycle not long ago...You add fish too often and introduce contagious pathogens eventually which you end up fighting for several months...


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

Not trying to be abrasive either.
Just truthful as best I can.
Video's? Picture's ? I haven't even had a phone of any kind for last ten year's 
Computer I am on now is at work, for I don't have one of those either.
Do have 40 yrs in the hobby however with all but the last ten, sans plant's in my tanks .


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Not trying to be abrasive either.
> Just truthful as best I can.
> Video's? Picture's ? I haven't even had a phone of any kind for last ten year's
> Computer I am on now is at work, for I don't have one of those either.
> Do have 40 yrs in the hobby however with all but the last ten, sans plant's in my tanks .



Fair enough.  I didn't bother buying a modern phone up until half a year ago either and I can't take pictures with a computer but I did have an old camera that did the trick...Having said that, I understand what you're saying. Its a choice of not being a slave to those things.. As a matter of fact, I do not have a television for that reason, not for the last 10 years...I'd rather pick what I want to watch myself, avoiding all the brainwashing programs....which I can achieve on a computer...

I do not count my "years of experience" as being a positive, which are 30 in fact if I count from when I got my first fish...The problem is that on my part years does not equal understanding..but practice, success and failure...I've killed many fish over the years, especially the first few years...


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

I killed untold number's as well.


----------



## dw1305 (24 Jan 2017)

Hi all,





roadmaster said:


> Maybe too much ammonia is detrimental to plant's as well as bacteria that we try to cultivate.?





sciencefiction said:


> When you add ammonia, plants grow quite fast. I have not experienced damage to plants by adding ammonia.


It depends on the plant, a fast growing floater like_ Eichornia_ or _Pistia _can <"assimilate huge amounts of nitrogen from really polluted effluents">. 

If you had entirely submerged plants, with lower potential growth rates (ferns, mosses etc), they may be damaged by higher ammonia levels, but I don't know what levels of ammonia we would be talking about. Tom Barr quotes some figures in <"When does ammonia..."> 

For me one of the major issue with high ammonia loading is that the microbial assemblage that produce differs from the one that the tank will have once ammonia levels fall. There is a more complete discussion in <"Talking with Diana Walstad">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

dw1305 said:


> If you had entirely submerged plants, with lower potential growth rates (ferns, mosses etc), they may be damaged by higher ammonia levels, but I don't know what levels of ammonia we would be talking about. Tom Barr quotes some figures in <"When does ammonia...">



About 3ppm ammonia in my scenario from the video above...doesn't even cause a diatom outbreak in a tank full of slow growing anubias...with brand new filters and media..


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

dw1305 said:


> For me one of the major issue with high ammonia loading is that the microbial assemblage that produce differs from the one that the tank will have once ammonia levels fall. There is a more complete discussion in <"Talking with Diana Walstad">.



This is theoretical and assuming that the ammonia level reaches high concentration and nitrification does not start whatsoever, for weeks, while one still dumps a regular dose of 3-4ppm ammonia.

  When you cycle a tank with ammonia, the actual first dose of ammonia dose gets depleted pretty rapidly, in 3-4 days max...from starting the cycle from scratch...After that it goes down in 2 days, then in 1 day, then in 12hrs or so but the nitrite starts building up and rising. After one has dosed lets say 4 times 3ppm ammonia in a course of a week, you get about roughly speaking the equivalent of 48ppm of nitrites.....But your nitrite test shows only 5ppm(because one doesn't realise that's its limit) so people get stumped at the nitrite stage, waiting for enough bacteria to be established to convert what they think is 5ppm nitrites, which is in fact 50ppm or so nitrites....which is the problem..in cycling with ammonia. You can't have those levels at once in a tank. You need to bring them down to almost 0 and start dosing ammonia regularly, until the ammonia and nitrites get converted at the same time.. but not letting either of them to build up to ridiculous levels.....Plus you can deplete all of the Kh and crash the ph down in a tank dosed with ammonia, stalling the cycle(same happens in tanks with high bioloads, fry tanks, overstocked tanks..)...so one has to do a water change or two to keep things ticking..


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

If relying on water changes to bring down possible ammonia/nitrite spikes in a newly set up tank, a simple maths calculation will show you that a couple of extra weekly water changes, even large, are far from sufficient unless you're 100% sure that what remains will be handled by the plants/filters..or the ammonia remaining is in a non-toxic form but that does not apply to nitrites as they are toxic in any sort of fresh water unless you add salt to it.

...I posted this on another thread a few days ago

*To reduce 1ppm ammonia to 0.0X ppm where X is a value below 5* ( the lower you want to bring more toxic substances down, the more water changes it takes)

Number of water changes @

70% - takes 3 water changes
50% - takes 4 water changes
40% - takes 6 water changes
25% - takes 14 water changes
20% - takes 19 water changes
10% - takes 29 water changes


Fish and fish food in a fully stocked tank produce more than 1ppm ammonia daily in any given tank....And fish will be exposed to toxic substances in a non-fully established, even well planted tanks at the start,even if at low levels not high enough to kill them outright..


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

Ammonia test in newly established tank will clearly show what level's of ammonia remain  after a water change.
Can easily see the result's of water change and ammonia level's in a bucket of water after said water change .(easy for one to test this)
With allowing plant mass to get established (one or two moss ball's don't cut it), one can easily see little in the way of ammonia at all with reasonable stocking/feeding's with week to ten day's between new fishes .
Lot's of plant's,few fishes per volume of water,sparse feeding's every couple day's, and cycling becomes much ado about nothing.
Have set up more than a few class room tanks where small children are not inclined to sit patiently while looking at empty tanks nor are they to be trusted with chemical's like ammonia.
Have used fishes/filter media to establish these tanks (few fish per volume of water),sparse feeding's ,patience .and used the same fishes or their off spring to establish other tank's.
Letting a substantial number of fast growing easy plant's get established for a few week's gives the children something to see/study, along with a few small fishes as the tank matures.
New fishes are quarantined mostly, which limit's the number's to size of quarantine tank.
I see no benefit's to stocking to capacity and do not teach the children to do so without risk's you mention no matter who/where the fishes are sourced from.
More than a couple way's to establish an aquatic environment but patience is key.IMHO


----------



## zozo (24 Jan 2017)

If i understood my biology textbook correctly, the bacterias are not solely depended on ammonia alone they have a much larger diet as long as it containes Organic Nitrogene they have a party.. And also not the melting of plants helps in this cycle, it is also the secretion of waste elements from the plant.
The plant lives partialy in symbiosis with the bacteria housing in it's roots and probably it's stem as well. It likely not only gives but also takes from the plant.. I guess this is what this whole working together process is about.

In this case i'm also thinking about what grandma did.. Take a cutting of a plant and a glass of tap water puts the cutting in and places it on the window sil.. That's it, only water and a plant cutting.. Lo and behold the plant keeps on living and even developing roots and it does this for weeks even months to come.. And then you take a microscope to look and than you are completely amazed by what you all can find in the water. This must proof something, the tap water and plant by itself likely containes enough for the initial startup to get something going and keep it going for quite some time with adding only tap water. That's a pretty nice feed of symbiosis in taking from and giving to eachother.


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

zozo said:


> If i understood my biology textbook correctly, the bacterias are not solely depended on ammonia alone they have a much larger diet as long as it containes Organic Nitrogene they have a party.



Yes, but you need to provide a nitrogen source in the first place...and one should avoid the nitrogen source being fish...Without a nitrogen source, the plants won't grow either...A new clean setup, with no soil that leaches any ammonia, will be almost void of nitrogen unless the tap water is abundant on it...



roadmaster said:


> Letting a substantial number of fast growing easy plant's get established for a few week's gives the children something to see/study, along with a few small fishes as the tank matures.



I disagree with that. No fishes at all in the first few weeks is the only way to go or you risk the kid's favourite fish die prematurely...Its irresponsible fish keeping knowing that there is a realistic possibility of water quality issues, even if minor...Stocking at once is absolutely not a problem if the tank is cycled with controlled levels of ammonia...A kid can and has done that type of cycling I am sure...Its not a new method...

From all the advise here, I see no easy instructions for a planted tank a kid can follow....The suggestions here is to plant heavily, stock slowly and do some extra water changes...That is very vague and open to interpretations. For some an extra water change is 10% twice weekly instead of 10% weekly where depending on the tank, you may need 70% daily... For others a fully planted tank means a few anubias and a couple of other random plants, and for some a lightly stocked 10G tank means 10-15 small fish.

But for a planted tank to work you've got to take the substrate type into account, the source water, the ferts regime, co2, flow, light, etc.....way too many variables that can go wrong in the first weeks..Planting a tank and introducing fish almost immediately only works for people that already have quite good experience in keeping fish or/and keeping plants. Most people start planted tanks in bare gravel and a few months down the road end up with bare tanks with fish...Its not that easy for a beginner to grow plants....


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

No,no fishes at all for first few week's is not the only way to go.
Does take some experience/instruction which I freely offered the children who were eager to learn. I was the custodian at elementary school, but more importantly, their friend.
Oddly enough, small children are easier to teach/learn than older student's/adult's who want to make everything more difficult than need be.
They, nor I, were/are irresponsible just slow,deliberate,patient.
No fishes or student's were harmed.


.


----------



## dw1305 (24 Jan 2017)

Hi all, 





sciencefiction said:


> Without a nitrogen source, the plants won't grow either...A new clean setup, with no soil that leaches any ammonia, will be almost void of nitrogen unless the tap water is abundant on it...


You still feed the plants.  

I'm a rain-water user, so I can be pretty sure there isn't much nitrogen in my water change water. I'll use the <"Duckweed Index"> as an indication of when to feed, but other people will use some fraction of EI, it really doesn't matter. 

Also because I don't have any fish in the tank I don't worry about the nitrogen source in the fertiliser, and I'll use what ever liquid feed I have to hand (usually what was <"remaindered in Wilko's">). If it has urea (CO(NH2)2), ammonium sulphate ((NH4)2SO4) or ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) as the nitrogen source it doesn't matter. It just needs to keep the plants growing. 

If there were fish in the tank then then I would advice using KNO3 as the nitrogen source.





sciencefiction said:


> Planting a tank and introducing fish almost immediately only works for people that already have quite good experience in keeping fish or/and keeping plants


That is really the reason for the floating plants, if you don't have floating plants you have all the potential problems of plants that have been produced emersed, non-aquatics sold as aquatics etc.





sciencefiction said:


> Its irresponsible fish keeping knowing that there is a realistic possibility of water quality issues, even if minor...Stocking at once is absolutely not a problem if the tank is cycled with controlled levels of ammonia...A kid can and has done that type of cycling I am sure...Its not a new method...


I agree with not exposing our fish to potentially damaging levels of ammonia etc, but we are going to have to differ after that. 

My opinion you are much more likely to get water quality issues with ammonia based cycling then you using a planted tank (with plants with the aerial advantage). 


roadmaster said:


> Does take some experience/instruction which I freely offered the children who were eager to learn. I was the custodian, but more importantly, their friend.
> Oddly enough, small children are easier to teach/learn than older student's/adult's who want to make everything more difficult than need be.


We have (had?) another member <"@Manrock"> who was a primary school teacher <"with tanks in his classroom">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## zozo (24 Jan 2017)

sciencefiction said:


> Yes, but you need to provide a nitrogen source in the first place...and one should avoid the nitrogen source being fish...Without a nitrogen source, the plants won't grow either...A new clean setup, with no soil that leaches any ammonia, will be almost void of nitrogen unless the tap water is abundant on it...



Tapwater obviously has, mine does, dunno the test can say anything between 5 and 10 ppm hence its just pink to me.... And or the plant itself sarcifises some tissue to make it happen along the way.. I don't know, don't ask to explain.. It's a what you see is what you get.. It might be in such tiny quantities to small for my eyes to see what's going on. It most likely also depends highly on plant sp. mass and grow speed howe much they initialy need.. I regurarly see it people taking home bamboo sticks from the garden centre and just put them in tapwater without having a drop of ferts in the house.. And when i visit weeks later it still stands living on the same darn spot, with roots and very often some foliage as well.. I can only guess with the little bit i know..


----------



## roadmaster (24 Jan 2017)

If no possible harm to fishes till bacterial colony is established is the goal/aim,and no plant's present, then can simply place a SMALL, raw ,uncooked, frozen prawn in a mesh bag with rock to hold it down and leave it in the tank for four week's.
At end of four week's,remove the mesh bag and what's left of the prawn, and perform 60% to 70 %  water change and can add a few small fishes within reason.(check for ammonia)
Water change before then may be needed if smell becomes offensive, but water change will not slow down the decomposing ammonia producing organic matter.
Just leave filter alone until fifth or sixth week.
Another similar method, would be to feed the tank a small pinch of fish food every other day for four week's, and perform the afore mentioned water change  at end of  fifth week before adding a few small fish.(check for ammonia)
While these may not allow for stocking a tank to capacity,they will provide food for establishing bacterial colony.


----------



## sciencefiction (24 Jan 2017)

roadmaster said:


> then can simply place a SMALL, raw ,uncooked, frozen prawn in a mesh bag with rock to hold it down and leave it in the tank for four week's.



I think the above and feeding fish food is worse than adding ammonia. You're inviting unwanted bacteria to establish to break down the prawn/food which can be pathogenic to fish,,,plus you can't control the levels of ammonia released. Ammonia based cycling is about controlling the level and knowing exactly how much the tank can handle every 12-24hrs after the cycle is over. 3-4ppm ammonia dosing during cycling is sufficient to develop bacteria that can handle a fully stocked tank(or less if you want) and feeding it daily as normal with a weekly water change, as normal, from the moment its cycled..without any subsequent hiccups in water quality...



dw1305 said:


> My opinion you are much more likely to get water quality issues with ammonia based cycling then you using a planted tank (with plants with the aerial advantage).



The truth is you don't get any water quality issues after the initial cycling with ammonia is over. I've tried it and tested it so many times, I am certain those tanks establish just fine and the rest is all speculation on the part of those that don't have experience cycling a tank this way.



dw1305 said:


> If there were fish in the tank then then I would advice using KNO3 as the nitrogen source.



Darrel, with all my respect you use rain water, and your knowledge of plants and chemistry surpasses majority of us here, and especially beginners. You assume that one starts with all the knowledge...just lack of experience when in fact one starts keeping fish with zero knowledge and doesn't even know anything about basics like the nitrogen cycle. In fact some people keep fish for years without understanding basic concepts like that....

Almost everyone I know that has a fish tank...has the average small tank, minimal, if any water changes and not even filters in some scenarios. Recently I spoke to someone who has kept a fish tank for years and their problem is...that fish can't make it a year. and in most cases a few months and they don't know what's going on....for the last few years.....Their only surviving fish is a clown loach...in a 20G tank..which apparently now can't keep its balance and is dying...What's stopping them to learn about fish and plants or any of it? Their issue is that they keep it sparkling clean....and still change the "dirty" filter media every 3 months. I couldn't convince them to stop changing the "dirty" filter media....so I just left it...And additionally, they buy 15-20 fish every so often and restock the tank....People are just not willing to learn for the most part and want everything to magically manage itself...Low tech tank heavily planted tank is a concept of little light, many plants and fishes where everything takes care of itself...which in reality does not happen...


----------



## dw1305 (25 Jan 2017)

Hi all, 





sciencefiction said:


> You assume that one starts with all the knowledge...just lack of experience when in fact one starts keeping fish with zero knowledge and doesn't even know anything about basics like the nitrogen cycle. In fact some people keep fish for years without understanding basic concepts like that....





sciencefiction said:


> Their issue is that they keep it sparkling clean....and still change the "dirty" filter media every 3 months. I couldn't convince them to stop changing the "dirty" filter media....so I just left it...And additionally, they buy 15-20 fish every so often and restock the tank....People are just not willing to learn for the most part and want everything to magically manage itself...


I'm sure your right, people want simple "black and white" answers in a "shades of grey" world. 

I first kept fish as a teenager in the 1970's, when "aged water" was supposed to have all sorts of magical properties, and I killed my fish with sickening regularity. The difference was that there wasn't much information then, and you were reliant on a limited range of sources. Things are different now, the problem is sorting out the wheat from the chaff among an information over-load on the WWW.

I think the whole biological filtration concept is quite a difficult one for most people, partially because in popular culture we see microbes as "bad", and cleanliness as good.

The real problem for me is that I'm just not sure that the whole cycling concept is very useful, partially because it promotes the idea of a binary switch between "non-cycled" and "cycled", and partially because it promotes the idea that the paraphernalia of water testing is going to give you consistent and reliable results that will allow you to manage your tank.

That is the beauty of the planted tank and the duckweed index, it gives a very simple set of rules that produces a robust and resilient tank.

cheers Darrel


----------



## roadmaster (25 Jan 2017)

Could almost see the class room's of children I helped with protective eye ware,gloves,respirator's, all looking very much like Minion Character's from the movie, and busily testing /dosing daily with highly toxic ammonia.(not likely)
Just needed to find some way's to accomplish the goal's while allowing hands on approach for the children and to keep them interested for more than a day or two.


----------



## zozo (25 Jan 2017)

Here the same story, started in the early 1970's .. Ammonia? Additional ferts? Aquarium textbook didnt talk about it, it contained 0 formulas other than tank dimensoins, volumes and pump capacity.. The lfs had washed riversand and gravels and lavarocks and bogwood, few plants (maybe half of tropicas easy database) all easy and relatively fast growing.. Fish and Eheim stuff. Filterfloss, peat and carbon all should be in there at once.. And than they had some bottles with miracelous elixer to make tapwater fish suitable on the fly. Never used them... Tanks were builded customly. Rocks you had to look for in the field if you wanted..

My first tank was still with a steel rim and orinairy putty.. Leaving a tank like that standing dry for 4 weeks rendered it useless and should be resealed. The rim was painted with red lead (minium) to prevent it from rusting. Hands in the water was a nono.. The air driven vacuumer to remove unsightly debri still available today is a relic from those days, to remove it without spilling precious dirty and stincky water. If a tank didn't smell like an old swamp it was no good...

So yes we cycled all tanks, don't laugh, we cycled them to death, because doing water changes was out of the question.

Diana Wallstad is right, if you leave a desently stocked tank without waterchanges at one point after about 2 months it starts booming.. I had all my tanks full with a very dense carpet of dwarf sag from front to back within weeks. Experienced it a dosen times, without Diana's academic formulas. And no need for adding co2... But it is a ticking timebomb a few months longer into the process bacterial and fungal infections start to appear. There was no way to control it, medicines only made it worse. Only remedy was, strip the tank start again. In average once a year was rather common, very large tanks maybe 2 years and for the very lucky ones maybe even longer. And those very lucky ones only spreaded false hope. Maybe there is a sweetspot to extend the periode to very long with a combination of, volume, stocking, plantmass and filtration. But at one point it will always crash.

For me personaly, having build up aquarium keeping like this, then from all information out there today, it is refreshing the water regularly and keeping excess debri under control, still is the most sensible and valuable of all. All the rest is from a beginners standpoint of view, more overcomplicating and distracting than it is helping.. Speeding things up, promotes haste, haste makes you run into unnecessary  problems even sooner. And indeed doing all the water changes slows thing down a bit, that's probably why all the thinkers out there came up with those miraculous fancy pancy substrates which need to "cycle".

Do you need it? NO.. Is it bad?? NO.. Should you do it? Up to you, do whatever you think is best and cycle allong..  Doing your waterchanges and keep it all relatively clean is your first proirity in respect to your fish and keep them healthy and happy.

But if you like an advice from old crazy farts.. Learn to swim first before you think of diving into deep waters.


----------



## sciencefiction (27 Jan 2017)

dw1305 said:


> The real problem for me is that I'm just not sure that the whole cycling concept is very useful, partially because it promotes the idea of a binary switch between "non-cycled" and "cycled", and partially because it promotes the idea that the paraphernalia of water testing is going to give you consistent and reliable results that will allow you to manage your tank.



I think the "cycling" concept is a great way of one "learning to walk before they start running". Being stuck to testing water for a while isn't a bad thing and it won't harm. The only thing I don't agree with the original advise on old school cycling out there is using a nitrate test as a measure of general water quality which just doesn't work well in reality and pretty much doesn't matter. ( A TDS/conductivity meter is way more useful and easier/cheaper to use) Ammonia and nitrite test is a waste of time for an established tank too but it does help when there's a serious water quality issue. It is still more beneficial to observe and read the signs rather than read a test but it takes time to be good at this and knowing your own tank(s) and fish enough to notice subtle changes....otherwise its too late....

With the High tech tanks obsessions and EI, people actually take even longer to learn how everything works...I think that high tech people find it hard to learn how most common plant deficiencies look like on their plants, they just increase or decrease the dose of whatever..change the fertiliser brand, the flow, the co2,,etc....but they don't know which worked(although claiming a particular thing worked denying the fact they did dozen of changes at a time) and don't risk trying things one by one patiently in fear of algae....... and nitrogen cycle remains a total blur for majority of them...People just learn a method of growing plants but if the method needs changing....they get confused....Regardless, whatever the approach...one will eventually learn....The difference is at what cost and what bitter memories.....


----------



## HiNtZ (7 Feb 2017)

I'm more inclined to side with those who chose to cycle with ammonium being added. Always had great results, and quickly too. I wouldn't do it any other way now.


----------



## JMorgan (8 Feb 2017)

I think its sad that there should be talk of "siding" with one side or another - clearly there are various methods that have the end result of an aquarist being able to introduce fish safely without fear of them being harmed. The first couple of tanks I set up a few years ago, I used Kleen-Off, despite having deep reservations about adding even a small quantity of such a corrosive chemical to an eco-system. But I read and re-read the "how to cycle your tank" guides, searching for hours for the ones that seemed to be clearest and most well-thought through, and largely driven by the fear of the massive distress it would cause my wife and daughter (and of course myself)  to wake up to a tank of dead fish, I was scrupulous in following the procedure and the testing process very precisely. Not because I really understood what I was doing, but because such guides are phrased with such absolute authority that they give the raw beginner confidence.

It was therefore a bit of a shock to stumble on this forum a few months later and discover that a great many people with long experience and with obviously professional-level scientific know-how to inform their points of view, were quite dismissive of the same test kits I'd invested such tremendous faith in! Looking back, 'faith' really is the appropriate word because it was very much about belief without adequate proof or direct experience.

If there is indeed a division I think it is between those (I hope relatively very few) aquarists who are willing to sacrifice, or at least risk, the health of a few so called "hardy" and probably pretty cheap, fish to the greater good - I'm supposing that's how they justify it - and those who categorically refuse to knowingly place any fish's health at risk, however hardy or cheap.

The misunderstanding I read time after time in the various forums I frequent, is that those of us (including myself these days) who do not choose to use household cleaning products to prepare their aquaria for livestock, are therefore by definition guilty of a "fish-in" cycle, with the further assumption that we do so either because we just don't care enough about our fish (or at least consider some species 'disposable'), or are too impatient or lazy to do it "properly" !!

As I have read Darrel and others explain time and time again, something pretty special happens when one creates an aquatic environment in which plants can grow and thrive: Typically what happens to me, is that some plants thrive and others melt as they adapt, and both are observable indicators of the presence of non-observable factors at work, namely bacteria and other micro-organisms LIVING in the aquarium. That said we're specifically interested in this discussion in establishing a foundation colony of nitrifying bacteria that can grow in response to the presence of ammonia and nitrites: These bacteria are strictly aerobic, meaning that their nitrifying ability is totally dependent on adequate supplies of oxygen. I wish this critically important fact was much more universally understood in the hobby, because it far outweighs most other factors.

But even in optimum conditions nitrifying bacteria multiply relatively very slowly by comparison to other bacteria:

_Nitrifying bacteria reproduce by binary division. Under optimal conditions, Nitrosomonas may double every 7 hours and Nitrobacter every 13 hours. More realistically, they will double every 15-20 hours. This is an extremely long time considering that heterotrophic bacteria can double in as short a time as 20 minutes. In the time that it takes a single Nitrosomonas cell to double in population, a single E. Coli bacterium would have produced a population exceeding 35 trillion cells. 
http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html_​Which is why the one thing that perhaps everyone can agree on, is that patience is the real key to success. Whether you use plants and their attendant microbial populations to 'seed' your tank or ammonia from a bottle, or both, or mature filter media, or one of the products that claim to contain nitrifying bacteria, they all take time to respond to changes in bio-load. When you get to the bottom of most "disaster" stories involving "new tank syndrome" its most often impatience that's actually killed the fish, ammonia and nitrite poisoning is just the symptom.

When I go back 40 years to my first tank, my parents were sold the tank, a UG filter, a bag of gravel and a load of _cabomba, swords _and _elodea_ and told to come back the next weekend for a few fish and then more the weekend after and so on. Despite complete ignorance - because to my knowledge there was no explanation ever given as to WHY he told us to do it that way - those fish lived for many years, and being mostly guppies, mollies and platys, reproduced like crazy throughout.

Cheers


----------



## alto (8 Feb 2017)

JMorgan said:


> It was therefore a bit of a shock to stumble on this forum a few months later and discover that a great many people with long experience and with obviously professional-level scientific know-how to inform their points of view, were quite dismissive of the same test kits I'd invested such tremendous faith in!


Not to worry  
In my professional life I measured enzyme kinetic parameters ranging from milimolar to picomolar (with accuracy & precision ) & had no difficulties getting most hobbyist test kits to perform to specifications 
I generated standard curves, performed serial dilutions etc -  most aquarium water test kits CAN work; kits using same methodology are often marketed for other water test applications, even strip test technology can deliver rather good (reproducible, accurate within limitations) data
It's fairly simple to look at the specific kit chemistries & known interferences & infer how likely these are to occur in aquaria, if you're on municipal water, it's very easy/simple to obtain tap water parameters ... bit more costly to obtain if on private well etc water.

As for "cycling", throw water in a glass box & THEY (bacteria etc) will come 
I prefer ammonia cycling for Malawi/Tanganyikan tanks - you can generate filter colonies to suit the bioload that's often added to the tank in one go 
I'm back in soft water country now so I just go planted & suitable fishes


----------



## dw1305 (8 Feb 2017)

Hi all, 





HiNtZ said:


> I'm more inclined to side with those who chose to cycle with ammonium being added. Always had great results, and quickly too. I wouldn't do it any other way now.


It isn't that using ammonia to cycle a tank doesn't work, lots of people use it and if you don't have plants or a substrate you don't have any other option.

The problem for me is really with the idea that tanks are either "cycled" or "non-cycled".





JMorgan said:


> It was therefore a bit of a shock to stumble on this forum a few months later and discover that a great many people with long experience and with obviously professional-level scientific know-how to inform their points of view, were quite dismissive of the same test kits I'd invested such tremendous faith in! Looking back, 'faith' really is the appropriate word because it was very much about belief without adequate proof or direct experience.


I think that is another factor, relying on test kits is often a "faith" position.





alto said:


> I generated standard curves, performed serial dilutions etc - most aquarium water test kits CAN work; kits using same methodology are often marketed for other water test applications, even strip test technology can deliver rather good (reproducible, accurate within limitations) data  It's fairly simple to look at the specific kit chemistries & known interferences & infer how likely these are to occur in aquaria, if you're on municipal water, it's very easy/simple to obtain tap water parameters .


 I also agree with "alto", I've no doubt that he can obtain accurate results, because of the scientific procedure he follows, but I would also be prepared to bet that relatively few of the quoted NO3 values on forums are even in the right ball park.

The strange think is that scientists, who are interested in water quality, don't rely on water testing. When you are assessing water quality in streams and rivers etc. you use <"biotic indices">, biological indicators and bio-assay techniques, mainly because they give you a holistic over-view.

Water quality might be really good 99.9% of the time, but if you have an isolated pollution incident involving a pesticide, or a short period of low dissolved oxygen levels, or continual low level organic pollution, it leaves a long lasting marker on the invertebrate assemblage. Experimentation has shown that certain groups of <"invertebrate are only found in non-polluted water">, find a <"Stonefly (Plecoptera) nymph">, and you don't need to look any further, water quality is good.

I'm not advocating using sensitive fish (rheophilic Plecs or Chocolate Gourami etc) as our "Stonefly", but you can still use a similar approach. 





JMorgan said:


> The misunderstanding I read time after time in the various forums I frequent, is that those of us (including myself these days) who do not choose to use household cleaning products to prepare their aquaria for livestock, are therefore by definition guilty of a "fish-in" cycle, with the further assumption that we do so either because we just don't care enough about our fish (or at least consider some species 'disposable'), or are too impatient or lazy to do it "properly" !!


It is just a divisive area, for whatever reason there is real animosity towards plants on certain forums, and that inevitably colours the "cycling debate".

This article by Dr Tim Hovanec (from 1997) on <"Aquatic plants and the nitrogen cycle">. It should also be noted that _<"Lobelia dortmanna"> _is a plant from cold, <"oligotrophic"> lakes, with a very low potential growth rate. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (8 Feb 2017)

Hi all, 
I just read another Dr Tim Hovanec article <"Water Quality: A Holistic Approach">. 

It is quite interesting, it is very "bacteria biased", in that it doesn't mention plants or Archaea, but it covers some of the same ground as this thread.

cheers Darrel


----------



## xim (8 Feb 2017)

roadmaster said:


> Maybe too much ammonia is detrimental to plant's as well as bacteria that we try to cultivate.?



I think it is. There are many studies about it. And one of them I've found is about Vallisneria natans vs NH4.

"indicating that a moderate NH4 -N concentration (<0.3 mg L−1 ) benefited the plant, whereas the high NH4 -N concentration (>0.56 mg L−1 ) eliminated the plant completely."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.318.4291&rep=rep1&type=pdf

By the way, NH4 = NH4-N * 1.28786. So the PPM's of NH4 in the above quote are <0.386358 PPM and >0.7212016 PPM.


----------



## alto (8 Feb 2017)

dw1305 said:


> Chocolate Gourami etc


yes those are my "sensitive fishes" 

I've followed the "recommended" protocol of limited water changes


> It naturally inhabits sluggish or still environments therefore filtration, or at least water flow, should not be very strong. Very large water changes are best avoided with 10-15% weekly adequate provided the tank is lightly-stocked.


(from Seriously Fish whom I hold in very high regard - I also keep S vaillanti, who again come with the minimal water change recommendation - & not just at SF)
& then gone over to my own preferred methodology of 70% every few days ... there's no doubt the fish respond well to the large frequent water changes, despite no ammonia, nitrites & minimal nitrates (5ppm range) measured, (my TDS broke & I've never replaced it) 

As Darrel says, the standard aquarium kits are really just a very superficial/limited perspective of water character

(note my tap water is very soft & suits Choco's well, if you're in an area with harder water, limited volume changes may be a better option - ie, get to know your own water & tank & livestock & sort out what works best)


----------



## Gill (8 Feb 2017)

Can I just say that this has been a most enlightening thread, So many views and sources used to convey both side of the issue. 
Now I myself don't cycle not even my picos. 
Heavily Plant, Clone the media but since i found Colony, use that now.
Works wonders, no cloudy water from bacterial bloom. No NTS and no loss of inhabitants even down to micro crabs. 
I also Use the Smell of the water to indicate health. I like the water to have a sweet earthy smell to it. anything other than that to me is showing a problem that needs fixing. And again that isjust me. 

I am due to set up a new tank next week. And for the 1st time in years I have no Tanks running to use as a Cloning method. So will be using Colony from the start, and can't forsee any issues. 
I do believe that nutrient hungry plants play such a major role in the health of the tank. And Floating plants are a go to for me. as well as Marimo Moss.


----------



## JMorgan (9 Feb 2017)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> I just read another Dr Tim Hovanec article <"Water Quality: A Holistic Approach">.
> 
> It is quite interesting, it is very "bacteria biased", in that it doesn't mention plants or Archaea, but it covers some of the same ground as this thread.
> ...


Hi Darrel - not sure if you were aware as its not so obvious to find and navigate to, but there's also a few papers he's published listed 
http://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/library-presentations/scientific-papers

cheers


----------



## alto (9 Feb 2017)

Colony doesn't looks so good in this presentation 

After 5 days tank is "_*cycled*_" despite 0.25ppm ammonia 
and where'd that 20ppm nitrate come from 

 -  my Choco's wouldn't be impressed with that either


----------



## dw1305 (9 Feb 2017)

Hi all, 





JMorgan said:


> Hi Darrel - not sure if you were aware as its not so obvious to find and navigate to, but there's also a few papers he's published listed


Yes, I have had a look through them, they predate the widespread use of PCR and RNA sequencing, and the discovery that a large proportion of ammonia oxdising organisms in aquariums are from the Archaea. 

There is more on this in <"Best way to cycle a ...."> and in Dr Hovanec's article <"Bacteria revealed">. 





dw1305 said:


> Dr Hovanec has carried on with his work on biological filtration, and in <"Bacteria revealed"> he talks about why they couldn't find any _Nitrobacter (NH4+ > NO2-)_ in aquarium filters (although _Nitrospira_ (NO2- > NO3-) was present. It is a good read and an objective review of his earlier work.





alto said:


> Colony doesn't looks so good in this presentation
> 
> After 5 days tank is "_*cycled*_" despite 0.25ppm ammonia
> and where'd that 20ppm nitrate come from
> ...


Yes, I agree with what they say, it is back to the "cycled" or not argument. I certainly wouldn't be putting livestock into that water. 

I suppose people just want (or are being sold) instant gratification. 

I think one of the problems for the "add plants and wait" method is that there isn't any profit in it. I have a real problem with certain companies in the aquatics industry, they are, at best, economical with the truth.

I would put in a word for Dr Tim Hovanec, he doesn't make outlandish claims for his products, there is a scientific back-ground to his work and he is reviewing what he has said (and presumably his products) in light of the new techniques for identifying nitrifying micro-organisms. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## sciencefiction (9 Feb 2017)

xim said:


> I think it is. There are many studies about it. And one of them I've found is about Vallisneria natans vs NH4.
> 
> "indicating that a moderate NH4 -N concentration (<0.3 mg L−1 ) benefited the plant, whereas the high NH4 -N concentration (>0.56 mg L−1 ) eliminated the plant completely."
> 
> ...



Interesting study... In line of this I've also come across NO3 toxicity although it relates to a marine species called Zostera Marine, killed by a concentration of 0.60ppm nitrates.  Same as the suggested preference of v.natans for NH4, zostera marina has an uregulated preference for NO3 and doesn't know when to stop...leading to toxicity. The paper  I read suggested such plants have evolved in environment with very low nitrogen and as a result don't do well in polluted environments.

From a different perspective, the above quoted study by xim has used sediments from the lakes, and lake water too in some, for the experiment in determining NH4 toxicity on V.natans.  The study revolves around the measure of NH4-N but nothing about other nutrients besides NO3 and P. To me, given this little information, their results could have been skewed by a number of other factors....

I have no doubt that ammonia in its NH4 and NH4 forms is toxic at certain levels/ratios depending on plant species, length of exposure and other factors...but the info is confusing.  The below paper on v.natans suggests way higher levels of ammonia tolerance than the previous one and takes into account heavy metals sediment pollution not taken into account in the above..

_This study provides new and important insights into potential methods of ecological restoration after an environment has been damaged by heavy metals. Experiments assessing ammonia-N stress on *V. natans *showed that *high ammonia-N content (>8 mg L−1) in the water column lead to severe plant damage *(Zhu et al., 2015). Compared to previous studies, our experiments evaluated relatively lower ammonia-N content in the water column and further *narrowed the tolerant water ammonia-N content to <6 mg L−1. *Moreover, this study suggests that cross effect of various factors are non-neglectful, even this cross effect seems less significant. Moderate to high sediment Cu levels intensify ammonia-N stress on submerged plants and yield much lower tolerant water ammonia-N content *(<3 mg L−1)* for V. natans.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846802/_


----------



## sciencefiction (9 Feb 2017)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> I just read another Dr Tim Hovanec article <"Water Quality: A Holistic Approach">.
> 
> It is quite interesting, it is very "bacteria biased", in that it doesn't mention plants or Archaea, but it covers some of the same ground as this thread.
> ...



It is a very basic paper paper in my opinion, nothing new..But it suggests methods you disagree with 

_Maintaining good water quality requires diligence and observation. A regular schedule for testing the critical and major water quality characteristics should be established. The values should be noted in a logbook and, if possible, graphed so any changes from normal can be easily spotted_.

And the concluding sentence is where it comes to the most important factor in my opinion.

_Maintaining a constant stable environment will go a long way towards ensure your fish live long, healthy lives. The easiest way to do this is by regular water changes._


----------



## jameson_uk (7 Aug 2017)

When I setup my 180l tank I used ammonia.  I set it up as a tank with plants rather than a planted tank and all the knowledge (especially here) makes me think I wouldn't next time.

I guess part of my original thought process was that I could understand adding ammonia.  It wouldn't stress any fish and I could see that X ppm of ammonia was gone within 24 hours.  Now fish produce ammonia thus if the tank is nitrifying pure ammonia is will deal with fish waste.  Now how much of this was due to the plants and how much was due to bacteria I will never know.

A lot of threads elsewhere about using plants talks about things like silent cycles and planting _enough_ of the right plants and doing some/none/loads of water changes and this starts to add unknowns which puts people off.

The bit that I still struggle with is how things will just develop if left and how you know it is ready.  I guess tap water should provide enough nitrogen to feed the plants but does a bacteria colony establish itself without the food you are adding in a fishless ammonia cycle?

I _still_ have my betta tank to setup.  The sponge filter has been sat in my main tank for several weeks and when I get time (read when my five month old / wife lets me) I will end up flooding it, adding plants (with floaters) and leaving for weeks before I find time to buy a fish.  I am hoping that the sponge filter will have bacteria from being in my relatively established tank but I do have concerns that this will die off without any food.


----------



## JMorgan (8 Aug 2017)

Don't put the sponge filter into the betta tank until you add the fish. Or buy an identical sponge filter to add when you start up the tank and then just swap the sponges over when you add the fish. 

I don't recall if I've said this here so forgive me for repeating myself if I have. My personal theory is that the whole fishless cycling thing came into the hobby at roughly the same time as the popularity of rift lake cichlids took off. i.e. tanks with none or very few plants and tanks that needed (ideally) to go from zero to pretty heavy bioload overnight in order to minimise aggression. That was a definite problem that needed to be solved and the 'fishless cycling' approach with household ammonia is one such solution. Another is well established_Vallisneria_ which grows in rift lakes.

However as with many such ideas human beings have a way of taking a reasonably good idea and making it into some sort of gospel TRUTH to which you either subscribe or get branded a heretic. This seems to especially apply to things you can't see (God or bacteria/archaea). Thankfully we can at least prove the existence of bacteria/archaea and biology tells us that they are EVERYWHERE - provably so. They are the foundation of life, quite literally. All we have to do is to create an environment in which plants are clearly growing, or a combination of melting and growing, and by definition the eco-system is establishing. This is extremely rapid with floating plants. You know its ready, when you see plants are growing - at least to begin adding fish gradually. With betta splendens, unless your LFS is truly exceptional, just providing it with a decent volume of water containing plants will so immeasurably improve its living conditions, I wouldn't worry!


----------



## dw1305 (8 Aug 2017)

Hi all,


JMorgan said:


> ... Or buy an identical sponge filter to add when you start up the tank and then just swap the sponges over when you add the fish.


I would go for that approach, you can squeeze out the old filter sponge into bowl of water, and then swirl the new filter sponge about in the mulm etc and that should give it a very good start back in the old tank. 


jameson_uk said:


> I guess tap water should provide enough nitrogen to feed the plants but does a bacteria colony establish itself without the food you are adding in a fishless ammonia cycle?


Yes it does, as the tank matures you get a complex and diverse community of micro-organisms, this will include the organisms that oxidise ammonia and nitrite, they don't disappear without added ammonia, they just remain as a minor component of the micro-flora in the upper levels of the substrate and rhizosphere around plant roots. When the ammonia loading increases they will respond, and your plants should take up enough ammonia to cover the lag period.

Problems are likely to occur only if your plant growth is severely carbon limited, or if you don't have sufficient dissolved oxygen.


jameson_uk said:


> I _still_ have my betta tank to setup. The sponge filter has been sat in my main tank for several weeks and when I get time (read when my five month old / wife lets me) I will end up flooding it, adding plants (with floaters) and leaving for weeks before I find time to buy a fish. I am hoping that the sponge filter will have bacteria from being in my relatively established tank but I do have concerns that this will die off without any food.


This will work, but I would follow @JMorgan's advice for "belt and braces".


JMorgan said:


> My personal theory is that the whole fishless cycling thing came into the hobby at roughly the same time as the popularity of rift lake cichlids took off. i.e. tanks with none or very few plants and tanks that needed (ideally) to go from zero to pretty heavy bioload overnight in order to minimise aggression. That was a definite problem that needed to be solved and the 'fishless cycling' approach with household ammonia is one such solution.


I think you are right, it isn't that fishless cycling can't work, it obviously does, and if you  want to keep a large bioload in a tank with a canister filter and no plants, you don't have any other choice.

My position would be that keeping a lot of fish in tank with-out plants and with a canister filter is untenable in the long run, and even with micro-management by the aquarist, disaster is eventually inevitable. 

It is down to probability, you have a single point of failure (the filter) and you are always balanced on the edge of low oxygen levels, potentially leading to a positive feedback loop of increased ammonia leading to lower oxygen, leading to increased ammonia etc.

I never kept Mbuna, but if I did I would keep them in a tank with a wet and dry trickle filter, a lot of water movement and a planted sump (or an over-tank planted trickle filter).


JMorgan said:


> Thankfully we can at least prove the existence of bacteria/archaea and biology tells us that they are EVERYWHERE - provably so. They are the foundation of life, quite literally. All we have to do is to create an environment in which plants are clearly growing, or a combination of melting and growing, and by definition the eco-system is establishing. This is extremely rapid with floating plants.


That is the answer, it is the "shades of grey" argument.

Cycling isn't a black and white, non-cycled to cycled, switch, it is shades of grey, dependent upon the capacity of the system to deal with the bioload.

Plants, a substrate, an establishment period, high oxygen levels, a tank with a high surface area to volume ratio etc. all give extra capacity to deal with the bioload, and the plants give you a negative feedback loop where increased ammonia leads to increased plant growth which leads to lower ammonia levels. There is more in @Bart Hazes, <"Interesting blog">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jameson_uk (10 Aug 2017)

JMorgan said:


> Don't put the sponge filter into the betta tank until you add the fish. Or buy an identical sponge filter to add when you start up the tank and then just swap the sponges over when you add the fish.


That is so obvious now I have had it pointed out 
Just had it in my head, need gas exchange must move filter to new tank...   Picked up an identical filter today and will just swap the sponges over when adding fish.   Might actually keep the sponge filter running in the main tank and use it if I ever need to setup a hospital tank.



> However as with many such ideas human beings have a way of taking a reasonably good idea and making it into some sort of gospel TRUTH to which you either subscribe or get branded a heretic. This seems to especially apply to things you can't see (God or bacteria/archaea). Thankfully we can at least prove the existence of bacteria/archaea and biology tells us that they are EVERYWHERE - provably so. They are the foundation of life, quite literally. All we have to do is to create an environment in which plants are clearly growing, or a combination of melting and growing, and by definition the eco-system is establishing. This is extremely rapid with floating plants. You know its ready, when you see plants are growing





dw1305 said:


> Yes it does, as the tank matures you get a complex and diverse community of micro-organisms, this will include the organisms that oxidise ammonia and nitrite, they don't disappear without added ammonia, they just remain as a minor component of the micro-flora in the upper levels of the substrate and rhizosphere around plant roots. When the ammonia loading increases they will respond, and your plants should take up enough ammonia to cover the lag period.
> 
> Problems are likely to occur only if your plant growth is severely carbon limited, or if you don't have sufficient dissolved oxygen. This will work, but I would follow @JMorgan's advice for "belt and braces". I think you are right, it isn't that fishless cycling can't work, it obviously does, and if you  want to keep a large bioload in a tank with a canister filter and no plants, you don't have any other choice.



I was more pointing out why I can see that people new to the hobby go down the ammonia route.

The one thing I have always wondered about though is choice of plants.  ISTR when I did a load of research when setting up the tank I found an article about silent cycles which basically said about 90% of the substrate needed to be covered with fast growing stems and you could then replace them with the plants of choice.  In a low tech tank with your ubiquitous LFS fare (amazon swords, java fern / anubias on wood and moss balls) would you get the same effect?   The swords will probably melt when they are added and transition to life under water and the java fern / anubias are so slow growing that I wonder how long it would take (ie. how would you know when you could start adding fish).


----------



## dw1305 (10 Aug 2017)

Hi all, 





jameson_uk said:


> ISTR when I did a load of research when setting up the tank I found an article about silent cycles which basically said about 90% of the substrate needed to be covered with fast growing stems and you could then replace them with the plants of choice.


You want fast growing plants, but it is really floating (or emergent) plants that are important.

Diana Walstad calls this the "aerial advantage", the title of Chapter 9.  in <"The Ecology of the Planted Aquarium">. The real issue is that because submerged plants are CO2 limited, there is the risk that lack of carbon (C) will limit the amount of nitrogen (N) they can take up. 

Also floating plants don't have the problem of acclimatization when they switch from emersed to submerged, their leaves are always emersed.

I like <"_Ceratopteris">_ and particularly <"_Ceratophyllum"> _as "stems", because they are sub-surface floaters and have access to the higher levels of CO2 nearer the surface.





jameson_uk said:


> The swords will probably melt when they are added and transition to life under water and the java fern / anubias are so slow growing that I wonder how long it would take (ie. how would you know when you could start adding fish).


I would definitely have some plants with strong roots in the substrate, I've got <"_Nymphaea">, <"Echinodorus">_ and <"_Cryptocoryne">. _

I like a growing in period, that allows the plants to start active root and leaf growth under-water, and that is going to take longer with <"Java Fern"> and <"_Anubias">_.

cheers Darrel


----------



## roadmaster (11 Aug 2017)

+One ^
My low tech tanks are a couple months running with plant's before I consider placing fishes in the tank even though I may have planned the tank around their need's.
Fast grower's like water sprite,anacharis,Vals,ludwigia,hygros ,are found fairly often in Fish stores here.
I plant slower grower's also and is usually month's before I trim anything for I much prefer overgrown jungle look.
If I float the Water sprite,or anacharis, I might have to trim or remove some fairly frequently for it grows so fast as to choke out any free swimming space and considerable light .


----------



## jameson_uk (20 Aug 2017)

This has been going round my mind for some time now...

I get that microorganisms and bacteria will develop but left alone the plants will die off? (certainly my experience where I forgot I had left some plants in the hospital tank...)

I guess most UK tap water will provide N via Nitrates and some micros but presumably a key element here is water changes but also ferts?


----------



## dw1305 (20 Aug 2017)

Hi all,





jameson_uk said:


> I guess most UK tap water will provide N via Nitrates and some micros but presumably a key element here is water changes but also ferts?


You still feed the plants, you can use a regular fertiliser addition (<"anything from 1/10 EI upwards">), or you can use the Duckweed Index.

I like small volume regular water changes, but you can probably get away with ~10% a week water change.

cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (17 Jun 2019)

Hi all, 





dw1305 said:


> This article by Dr Tim Hovanec (from 1997) on <"Aquatic plants and the nitrogen cycle">. It should also be noted that _<"Lobelia dortmanna"> _is a plant from cold, <"oligotrophic"> lakes, with a very low potential growth rate.


There is an updated paper on the effects of _Lobelia dortmanna _on rhizosphere microbial assemblages:

 "The effect of Lobelia dortmanna L. on the structure and bacterial activity of the rhizosphere". K Lewicka-Rataj, A Świątecki, D Górniak - _Aquatic botany_, 2018. 

I have access if any-one wants a copy, but the key findings were: 

The effect of _Lobelia_ on microbial processes in the rhizosphere sediment is presented.
High redox potential and high bacterial respiration rate in the rhizosphere.
High DOC concentration results in high bacterial activity in rhizosphere.
CO2 concentration in rhizosphere depends on the number of active bacteria cells.
cheers Darrel


----------



## becks (20 Jun 2019)

I bet you could run a planted tank without a filter, just by using a powerhead for flow.  You would have enough surface area on the within bogwood, rocks, substrate and with the assistance of plants to house enough bacteria to convert ammonia (or uptake by the plants) Reef tanks have used that principle with porus rocks for years.


----------



## sparkyweasel (21 Jun 2019)

Lots of people do that. It used to be the normal way, then it went out of fashion, then Diana Walstad re-invented it. That's the name to Google for info.
You don't even need the powerhead, unless you injected CO2, then you would need the flow, but low-tech is more usual.


----------



## jaypeecee (7 Dec 2019)

dw1305 said:


> ...but I would also be prepared to bet that relatively few of the quoted NO3 values on forums are even in the right ball park.



Hi @dw1305 

I'm having a wander around some older threads and spotted your post above. I am aware of a few reasons why NO3 values may be incorrect such as:

[1] Some test kits reporting 'nitrate' as 'nitrate nitrogen'. Then, needing to multiply the result by 4.43.

[2] Not shaking one of the reagents adequately.

[3] Using test strips instead of liquid tests.

But I would be keen to learn more.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (7 Dec 2019)

Hi all, 





jaypeecee said:


> I am aware of a few reasons why NO3 values may be incorrect such as:
> 
> [1] Some test kits reporting 'nitrate' as 'nitrate nitrogen'. Then, needing to multiply the result by 4.43.
> [2] Not shaking one of the reagents adequately.
> ...


 In terms of tests that require a colour change the problem is really that ~ all <"nitrate compounds are soluble">.

This means that we need to reduce the nitrate (NO3) to nitrite (NO2), and then combine that NO2 with a second reagent to give a coloured compound. From <"https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/vms57.html">





> The cadmium reduction method is a colorimetric method that involves contact of the nitrate in the sample with cadmium particles, which cause nitrates to be converted to nitrites. The nitrites then react with another reagent to form a red color whose intensity is proportional to the original amount of nitrate. The red color is then measured either by comparison to a color wheel with a scale in milligrams per liter that increases with the increase in color hue, or by use of an electronic spectrophotometer that measures the amount of light absorbed by the treated sample at a 543-nanometer wavelength. The absorbance value is then converted to the equivalent concentration of nitrate by using a standard curve.


We don't tend to use cadmium (Cd) any more, but all these types of colourimetric tests work in the same way, just with less toxic reagents.

Other than the factors you've mentioned, issues can come with interference from other monovalent anions, this also affects <"ion selective electrodes">.

My suspicion is that a lot of the variability is really down to people not diluting the initial sample of tap water with RO.

You need to do more tests, but you just serially dilute the sample down until you don't get a colour change. At that point, using the conversion factor that you got from the equation for your standard curve, you multiply the last positive NO3 value you got by the dilution factor.

I've actually done this with (someone else's tank water, using the MQuant strips) and the initial ~25 ppm NO3 reading, went following dilutions, to about 200ppm NO3. I wouldn't rely on the 200 ppm as accurate, but I'd be willing to bet the actual value was nearer 200 ppm than 25 ppm.






As a disclaimer the strips were all I had to hand, so I don't have an accurate value, and I would agree that there are better options for the aquarium.

cheers Darrel


----------

