LFS opinion on cycling & bacteria

[ValleyMykel]

Ah I think you misunderstood me. The British expression “call it a day” just means to do nothing further. So in my context I’m saying that placing a fish in a bowl with no further research, effort or interest is objectively bad.

Ah, understood, then I will retract a few statements. I am quite used to being immediately shut down on certain... other communities within the hobby when it comes to presenting alternative advice.

I may have taken your reply as knee jerk retaliation, so I apologize.

Yes you are absolutely right. I fear its common with other animals as well, even common pets like dogs and cats. Neglect is a horrible thing when in the context as seeing these animals as mere décor rather than a responsibility. The bright side, in my opinion, is that this hobby seems to have some form of a weird learning curve. Its challenging at first because... you don't know anything, and the stress of the overwhelming amount of scattered information scares you, but the more you learn about the ecology of aquatic environments and start putting pieces together, the more you realize how much you really never needed to know in the first place just to have a stress free aquarium... if that makes any sense.

 

[simon_the_plant_nerd]

I am quite used to being immediately shut down on certain... other communities within the hobby when it comes to presenting alternative advice.

We’re a nice community here. We have some ‘lively’ discussions at time but generally, the discussion here is open and thoughtful. Animal welfare is a subject which may get heated and have a difference of opinions but at the heart of it, everyone just wants our pets to have the best life we can give them.

I may have taken your reply as knee jerk retaliation, so I apologize.

No worries. I didn’t take offence. 👍🏻

Its challenging at first because... you don't know anything, and the stress of the overwhelming amount of scattered information scares you, but the more you learn about the ecology of aquatic environments and start putting pieces together, the more you realize how much you really never needed to know in the first place just to have a stress free aquarium... if that makes any sense.

I’m always learning something new. That’s what keeps the hobby interesting. I agree, it’s easy to over complicate it early on. Once you have an understanding of the ecosystem you’re trying to replicate though, you start to relax and it becomes easier.

 

[ValleyMykel]

For me, maturing an aquarium is, to some degree, about giving yourself the least risk of negative outcomes to inhabitants.

This is true, one of my ideas was that no aquarium needs to be setup by only utilizing brand new elements. They can be seeded easily beforehand, which is extremely common. The most common being the already seasoned sponges from other aquariums, or plants that have already adapted to the water it will be raised in. Even the substrate can be seeded, as I have utilized soil/mud/or sand from established ponds as a nutrient layer before capping it with sand.

Which is why, on the topic of utilizing inert elements, I find that preventing heavy exposure to anything that is active, like soils, ferts, and food, is how you prevent instability within early stages. Its how a lot of my aquariums avoided negative effects towards the inhabitants.

I recently attempted a simple shrimp bowl with only sand and pearlweed within a few minutes. With the only other additives being a bicarbonate buffer (crushed coral) and some dead tree leaves. The idea was that by not having anything at all to influence the system, like food, ferts and soils, as part of the setup, one could easily keep animals without waiting. That bowl is way past that stage now, and I am having to trim every week despite not having much influence besides the dead tree leaves and the shrimp and snails. I know why it works and how good it can be for beginners, but convincing others that it can work is challenging due to the broad skepticism.

Aquarium stability and health is more than just an aquarium that has completed its initial 'cycling' period.

Agreed, but sadly many still believe in the 'cycling' period being the absolute judgement on whether an aquarium is considered healthy or not. More importantly, the vast majority only believe in one 'cycling' method and discredit others as blasphemy and fish abuse.

It pains me every day when I see someone who is asking for help with a sick fish, or a problem with their aquarium, and the only response they receive is gaslighting remarks about how they didn't 'cycle' the aquarium the exact same way they did and how they must hate their fish for not having an API Freshwater Master Test Kit™ available.

Because every disease and infection with fish is solved by making sure your nitrate readings are below 20ppm... lol.

I understand that I may be preaching to the coir here, but I find my favorite phrase to be "cycled does not equal thriving", as a way to throw silly banter towards the common non-argument: "surviving does not equal thriving" which I am sure many here have seen.

 

[ValleyMykel]

I’m always learning something new. That’s what keeps the hobby interesting. I agree, it’s easy to over complicate it early on. Once you have an understanding of the ecosystem you’re trying to replicate though, you start to relax and it becomes easier.

It truly does. I personally explain to people who are new, who wish to research on their own rather than being mentored, is to become successful with one guide they find the most comfortable to start with, and understand why and how that one guide works before attempting exploring other ideas. I believe a lot of failures come from researching through all guides without prior understanding and creating a recipe out of misguided motivation. The simple example is when people traditionally would attempt their own version of a "fish-in cycle", by putting fish in the first day... and spiking the ammonia to 2ppm with Dr. Tims standard.

 

[Bradders]

It pains me every day when I see someone who is asking for help with a sick fish, or a problem with their aquarium, and the only response they receive is gaslighting remarks about how they didn't 'cycle' the aquarium the exact same way they did and how they must hate their fish for not having an API Freshwater Master Test Kit™ available.

You won't find that on UKAPS. I don't agree with some; some don't agree with me. But the commonality between all of us is fish, plants and nature.

I am a technology and fish man on a forum who loves and promotes plants. 😀 I have never felt more welcome and have learnt so much in the process.

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

They can be seeded easily beforehand, which is extremely common. The most common being the already seasoned sponges from other aquariums, or plants that have already adapted to the water it will be raised in. Even the substrate can be seeded, as I have utilized soil/mud/or sand from established ponds as a nutrient layer before capping it with sand.

I'm guessing that is what most experienced aquarists do (I do). As a method it certainly has science on its side - <"Correspondence with Dr Ryan Newton - School of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee">.

In terms of a "bacterial starter culture" this is what Dr Ryan Newton said:
..... Nitrifiers are present in many environments because they can live with comparably low external nutrients (carbon particularly). There are a couple of good possibilities, 1) the water - most municipal water systems contain some number of nitrifiers, which then come out of your residence tap; 2) the plants - nitrifiers are also commonly associated with plants. Or, it could be they drift in from the air - seems less likely, but it is not impossible.

If you do need to add nitrifiers the best source is from an aquaponics or aquaculture system that is already running and removing ammonia. Some water or sediment/soil or part of the biobilter (if there is one) is an excellent starter. Without this source as an inoculum then you could add some roots from plants from any other tank that is running - these are likely to have nitrifiers associated with them. A small clipping put into the tank would be enough.

In some lab tests we found that adding previous material from a running biofilter could reduce ammonia oxidation start-up time from 2-3 weeks to 2-3 days. We also tested a commercial product of nitrifiers & it did decrease the time to ammonia oxidation start-up. It was slower than our biofilter material transfer, but much quicker than doing nothing .........

So a pretty conclusive answer, from one of the leading scientists in the field - <"Microbiology | Newton Lab Uwm">.

Agreed, but sadly many still believe in the 'cycling' period being the absolute judgement on whether an aquarium is considered healthy or not. More importantly, the vast majority only believe in one 'cycling' method and discredit others as blasphemy and fish abuse.

Difficult, I think a lot of us have been there, I certainly have - <"How to know if your tank is cycling...">.

We have a thread with comment from another group of leading scientists - <"Neufeld Research Group | Neufeld Research Group | University of Waterloo"> and it covers this subject area in some detail <"Correspondence with the Neufeld lab. University of Waterloo">.

It pains me every day when I see someone who is asking for help with a sick fish, or a problem with their aquarium, and the only response they receive is gaslighting remarks about how they didn't 'cycle' the aquarium the exact same way they did and how they must hate their fish for not having an API Freshwater Master Test Kit™ available.

That is another issue, and something that <"UKAPS is trying to address"> - <"Cycling confusion">.

Because every disease and infection with fish is solved by making sure your nitrate readings are below 20ppm... lol.

and the <"same for this">, although, as you say, it is an <"uphill struggle">.

It was actually the difficulties in accurately measuring nitrate, for the average punter, that led (independently) to the development of <"both Estimative and Duckweed Indices">.

cheers Darrel

 

[ValleyMykel]

I'm guessing that is what most experienced aquarists do (I do). As a method it certainly has science on its side - <"Correspondence with Dr Ryan Newton - School of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee">.

I remember seeing that recently, awesome stuff and really solidifies our understanding with the most optimal methods we can employ. I wish more people could spread this information to the masses instead of the common beginner guides floating around.

I've been lurking UKAPS for a while and have always lead myself down endless rabbit holes with your hyperlinks, very fun rollercoaster. Will continue doing so, since its helped me a few times when trying new things in the hobby.

It was actually the difficulties in accurately measuring nitrate, for the average punter, that led (independently) to the development of <"both Estimative and Duckweed Indices">.

Yeah, I've seen those concerns here and in other areas of communication as well. I've personally started ignoring nitrate monitoring with liquid kits and have been utilizing plant deficiency charts. Your duckweed index is something I will be reading up on a little more in depth since I just skimmed it a while back and found it to be a neat concept. I would like the company I work for to start employing some nitrate probes for our YSI multimeters, and possibly getting some powder pillows for our colorimeters so I can run some tests on my tanks, but they are so uncommon with our customers that I never get to see or use them.

From a toxicology standpoint, from what Ive researched and looked into so far is that nearly every paper or article, outside of the generic outdated aquarium infoguides floating around google, that determines the level of which nitrate would become toxic to animals always mentions NO3 concentrations as NO3-N. Unlike most of our cheap hobby kits that just measure the total NO3 as a whole, inflating the number. Which is another layer that I find to be important when determining nitrate toxicity. Ive been digging around this forum trying to find any mention of this variable, but I'm surprised to say I have not found any talk about it. Perhaps there are more important variables? I notice talk of the different organic and inorganic nitrate being used to determine toxicity in each study, such as the differences between NaNO3 and KNO3.

I feel like this has been talked about already, but I just haven't found it. If you happen to remember such I would love to look into it and see what conclusions have been made so far.

Thanks again

 

[dw1305]

Hi all.
I'm pleased you've enjoyed UKAPS.

and have been utilizing plant deficiency charts. Your duckweed index is something I will be reading up on a little more in depth since I just skimmed it a while back and found it to be a neat concept.

It was the relationship between leaf growth & colour and fixed nitrogen levels that directly led to the development of the <"Duckweed Index"> and subsequently the "publication" of the <"Leaf Colour Chart"> that led me to write about the underlying concepts more widely.

I would like the company I work for to start employing some nitrate probes for our YSI multimeters

<"Ion selective electrodes"> are the way forward, but they aren't something that I expect people to buy. You can get <"accurate nitrate"> (NO3-) results <"using test kits">, but I still think they are no more effective than the "Duckweed Index". I just like <"visual methods">.

Ive been digging around this forum trying to find any mention of this variable, but I'm surprised to say I have not found any talk about it. Perhaps there are more important variables?

There are some threads which look at studies using <"Zebra (Fish) Danio (Danio rerio)">.

Taken at its base level, the nitrate ion (NO3-) is <"many orders of magnitude less toxic"> than either nitrite (NO2-) or ammonia (NH3) <"https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.lb277">

.........The Zebra(fish) Danio (Danio rerio) paper use NaNO2 and NaNO3 as its source of NO2-/NO3- ions. If you convert the 606 mg/L (ppm) NaNO3 to ppm NO3- you get 442 ppm NO3- (RMM 85 and 62/85 ~ 73% NO3), so we are still talking pretty elevated levels of NO3-..........

Perhaps there are more important variables? I notice talk of the different organic and inorganic nitrate being used to determine toxicity in each study,

This is really the <"smoking gun"> aspect of nitrate measurement.

The question is, is the NO3- we measure the result of the microbial oxidation of ammonia? or has it always been the NO3- ion while it was in the tank?

While <"every nitrate ion is the same">, their <"route into tank water can differ">, and that is <"really the important bit">.

cheers Darrel