Cycling Discussion.

No no no. Billions of trillions.

That was just an example mate... hence why I said 'for example'.

No there isn't a lag. The microbe will just divide and the two will keep eating.

You keep talking about doubling the food. Do you know how long it takes to double a microbial population? Minutes in some cases. Hours I would guess in the case of the denitrifiers in our tanks. Don't forget how exponential growth works. We're only talking about a single doubling time. Ramping up from a few to billions of trillions takes some time. Going from billions of trillions to twice that number takes at most hours.

I totally agree, it can be very fast for microbes to propagate. That's why one can start with an almost bare tank, and after a short period of time (days), it could be filled with microbes. However don't forget that they can't always double their numbers easily though. Remember in biology class, that growth curve? Competition for food for example, is a major factor in limiting growth. Sometimes it won't be a doubling.

But why are we even talking about this? Sure, microbes can grow very quickly, but like you say, it does take longer to go from a few billion to trillions, for example. To be precise, going from say a billion to a trillion takes about 80 hours or somewhere thereabouts, as iirc the doubling time for our microbes of interest is 8 hours.

That is the reason why though, you do see many tanks that have gone to zero ammonia or whatever, but then when they add fish, see a large ammonia spike. That's because although the microbes are dealing with the ammonia, firstly there's not enough to take it down quickly, and secondly although they may be multiplying during that situation, they're not doing it fast enough. Which is why I advocate getting the microbes to be at high levels BEFORE adding fish, so that even in the worse case scenario, it's just one or two doublings (or whatever amount of increase it is) to be able to take on the nutrients.

Of course, it is entirely possible too for one to have plenty of microbes from the beginning, and it won't matter for example.

But see, that's also why I advocate testing for it. It's a simple test, and doesn't hurt to try. If there is enough microbes to deal with whatever amount of food we want to feed daily (plus some extra for good measure), then awesome. If not, then precautions may need to be taken. I guess if it's just slightly longer than a day, then that's fine.

Let's say for example someone set up a tank and added food or left it as is or whatever, and a week later parameters zero out. They have a 10 gallon tank and plan to add about 100 tiny pellets a day. They test 150 for good measure.

Situation A: The tank takes more than one day to reduce ammonia and stuff to zero, or close enough. Maybe it's three days.

Would it be good to know then? Since that would mean that the amount of microbes is not quite there, if it's gonna take that long. If they had added live stock such as fish right away and kept up their daily feeding, then by the second day there'd be all that ammonia and stuff from that day's feeding, plus whatever is left from the previous. And so on.

Situation B: The tank takes less than one day to reduce ammonia and stuff to zero, or close enough.

Well there we go, at least it's entirely sure that the aquarium can deal with a whole lot of food. And so when live stock such as fish is added and fed, there's no worries! Whether or not one wants to add all the planned fish, or multiples, or one a time is one's choice, but at least the microbes already all there to deal with it.
 
Azedenkae, I do see what you're saying and it isn't unreasonable. You feel strongly that a tank should be cycled using the same amount of input (food) that the tank owner will realistically use during a daily feeding. I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but it remains true that not everyone cycles their tank this way and it works out just fine. I think at best you can say that your chosen method of cycling represents a decent guideline (similar to the guideline that one should dose 1-2ppm of pure ammonia) and just leave it at that. I think what disc1 was trying to say is that bacteria are more resilient than we give them credit for and that the amount of available surface area for colonization is more important than how much we use to ghost feed the tank. Anyways, not trying to argue with you, but I really don't think this is an issue of who is right and who is wrong. It's just a slight difference in methodology.

For instance, I am currently cycling a new tank using pure ammonia. Whether or not I'm using an amount of ammonia that is equal to what I will eventually feed the tank inhabitants is not a concern to me. I know that the introduction of ammonia will kick start the growth of a bacteria population that will drive the biological cycle. Many people do this, and many people use raw shrimp, or fish food or some other method and we all achieve the same results.
 
Azedenkae, I do see what you're saying and it isn't unreasonable. You feel strongly that a tank should be cycled using the same amount of input (food) that the tank owner will realistically use during a daily feeding. I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but it remains true that not everyone cycles their tank this way and it works out just fine. I think at best you can say that your chosen method of cycling represents a decent guideline (similar to the guideline that one should dose 1-2ppm of pure ammonia) and just leave it at that. I think what disc1 was trying to say is that bacteria are more resilient than we give them credit for and that the amount of available surface area for colonization is more important than how much we use to ghost feed the tank. Anyways, not trying to argue with you, but I really don't think this is an issue of who is right and who is wrong. It's just a slight difference in methodology.

For instance, I am currently cycling a new tank using pure ammonia. Whether or not I'm using an amount of ammonia that is equal to what I will eventually feed the tank inhabitants is not a concern to me. I know that the introduction of ammonia will kick start the growth of a bacteria population that will drive the biological cycle. Many people do this, and many people use raw shrimp, or fish food or some other method and we all achieve the same results.

I totally agree. I mean in the end, so long as we end up with a tank where live stock can thrive, and are able to deal with issues that arise, then that's all there is to it. One big thing that started all this discussion as well, is difference in belief as to what a cycle should lead into. Whilst I believe that an aquarium should be fully (or as much as possible) ready for whatever live stock, others do not believe so. So the end goal already is different.

But that's personal preference, and really I don't mind if others do that, as it's their choice. Much as what they choose to use as well - fish food, seafood from the markets, ammonia, just die-off, or whatever.

But yeah, in the end its personal preference. I don't deny others can find ways to make it work, just that what I do works too. :P
 
I totally agree. I mean in the end, so long as we end up with a tank where live stock can thrive, and are able to deal with issues that arise, then that's all there is to it. One big thing that started all this discussion as well, is difference in belief as to what a cycle should lead into. Whilst I believe that an aquarium should be fully (or as much as possible) ready for whatever live stock, others do not believe so. So the end goal already is different.

But that's personal preference, and really I don't mind if others do that, as it's their choice. Much as what they choose to use as well - fish food, seafood from the markets, ammonia, just die-off, or whatever.

But yeah, in the end its personal preference. I don't deny others can find ways to make it work, just that what I do works too. [emoji14]

When my tank is cycled regardless of which way I used to cycle it yours or mine, as long as they are established and have gone through a proper cycle the end result will be the same. Your tank isn't going to be one single bit more prepared than mine. A cycle is a cyle brother. Period.
 
Yea like I said if each cycle is done properly the results are the same. The difference between mine and yours is simply you may or may not have more bacteria than me (I don't really know because u have never specified PPM wise what your ammonia actually goes to) even if you do my tank will have the same amount as your tank within 12 hours probably sooner when it's all said and done. So like I said.....a cycle is a cycle the end result is the same.
 
Back
Top