Cycling without testing?

[NirvanaFan]

Decrease in nitrate or denitrification is NOT a part of cycling...

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Anaerobic bacteria convert nitrate into nitrogen gas. This is an important part of getting the nitrates out of the system. It may not be as important as the conversion of ammonia to nitrite, but it still is very important.

I don't think throwing all that matter in at once and getting a spike in ammonia is a good thing, especially on rock that you are trying to save all the life on. All the clams, algae, worms, snails, etc, you want in the tank. spiking ammonia is not a good thing IMO.

If you are seriously looking to cycle with minimal die off, but be ready for fish at the end, you may consider this.

Get the live rock in the tank with saltwater. Wait 3 days. Start adding pellets, pieces of shrimp, etc very and ramp it up every day. For example, on day 3 add 3 pellets. On day four, add 4. On day 5, add 5. Continue for 3 weeks. This should create a large bacteria population without spiking ammonia. The bacteria will gradually increase. You could base your feeding nothing in the tank by what you planned on stocking after the cycle.

Every time you add a new fish, you could do the same thing. Get the fish and put it in quarantine, and feed the display more and more until you are ready to put the fish in.

 

[sowellj]

my two cents ... regardless of where you fall in the need shrimp/don't need shrimp camp ... I think you could do this. However, I would be worried about having a new system set up and not being able to monitor it. A new system will likely have some bugs that need working out and the cycle is a great time to do that. I understand that you are anxious, however, if you are using fresh live rock, I think you could be cycled in two weeks ... which is not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Michael]

To clarify my point, this is one of the contingencies I specifically mentioned my theory did not account for. My assumption was that most people are not either so confident (or overconfident I'd argue) or foolish enough to fill a tank with fish in one fell swoop. If this is your plan, I do understand the argument for a "robust cycle". You will need a large enough population of bacteria to handle this bioload from the get go, and if you don't give them enough of an energy source from the beginning, the tank will more than likely not be ready. In this particular case, I would imagine the addition of an external ammonia source would be necessary. I think it's still quite a bit of a risk, though. But I guess if you can't decide what you should do, a cocktail shrimp or two probably isn't going to do anything more harmful than stink a bit and perhaps look kind of nasty for awhile.

yep i agree with this

 

[IslandCrow]

The alternative of not having a robust cycle (actually not realizing the correct way to cycle) is to stock slowly. If you add one unit of bioload and than wait 3 months before you add another one, you would be re-cycling with livestock. There is a large problem with is approach. It is to accept that re-cycling as you add livestock is necessary or acceptable. If is not, and ammonia at even quite sub-lethal level is not good for fish for and at any time.

In the end, I think we're going to simply agree to disagree on the need for what you term a robust cycle, especially since I certainly don't see any harm in your method. I do have to disagree on one particular point. In my method, I am certainly not "re-cycling" when I add livestock. This would assume that there is an insufficient supply of bacteria to handle the increased bioload. This is simply not true. The bacteria continue to thrive without any input on our part. Just because we're unable to measure the ammonia levels in the tank does not mean it is not being produced all on its own and providing energy for the bacteria. Also, just because you are not manually adding an ammonia source during the cycling period does not mean the existing bacteria cannot handle an increased bioload. I have never seen a measurable increase in ammonia after adding livestock, and I know for a fact I'm not alone in this. I agree that your method is valid and even necessary in some circumstances, but what I want to point out is that it is not the only viable and responsible method for preparing a tank for livestock.

 

[wooden_reefer]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Anaerobic bacteria convert nitrate into nitrogen gas.

There is nothing to agree or disagree on a definition.

Historically, cycling has been around for over forty years before denitrification was a common concept in an aquarium.

Cycling really is defined and understood as the intense cultivation of nitrification bacteria onto a medium.

Many things good to establish in a new tank are NOT cycling by definition, just good stuffs on their own merits.

Also, just as I have said, when you talk about cycling with recently collected LR too often, you make the process of cycling more complex than it is.

You do not have to use recently collected LR to cycle even if you eventually use LR as the primary established medium of filtration. You can use a cheap transitional medium and cycle from the dead, then gradually remove it over the course of a few months. If you want to preserve as many lives on the recently collected LR, this is what you should do.

Is it really the best to preserve as many lives on recently collected LR? Does ammonia kill more pests than desirably lives? This is a separate issue.

But you can prevent exposure of recently collected LR to any ammonia if you cycle robustly in advance using a cheap and transitional medium, which you withdraw gradually later.

When you cycle with just 20 pounds of crushed oyster shell, at the end of a cycle you can observe that it processes a lot of ammonia, enough to handle any ammonia from any dieoff from LR, in general.

A definition is as it is. One can state why a definition is helpful, but one cannot argue against it. It eases communication amount aquarists.

For example, a very important one, when I say that the medium for QT of fish should have undergone a cycle, I mean just that. I mean a lot of nitrification bacteria should be on the medium before QT starts, before you get any fish. I do not mean denitrification bacteria, as nitrate is next to harmless to fish in this context.

 

[Michael]

if a 13/14/15 year old newcommer to the hobby saw some of the posts on this forum (new to the hobby) they wouldnt ever start up a marine tank, for instance, can you clarify in simple terms what denitrification and nitrification means, and why robust cycling is important, and how you achieve this, i keep seeing you say these things wooden, and the fact testing at cycling stage isnt neccessary, you suggest just testing nitrite on day 14 and 35 and no need for any other tests, how does a complete novice know if his cycle is robust enough if he or she only tests nitrite twice and nothing else? i check this with ammonia testing and ammonia readings, i cant work out how with just nitrite tests just twice, and how would they? whats robust in your opinion, what reading? and if just nitrite tested then how would they achieve this? i think we agree that ammonia is deadly and shouldnt be an issue as preparation for intented livestock is important, so how does a newcommer now if ammonia is present and media cycled robustly?

 

[wooden_reefer]

if a 13/14/15 year old newcommer to the hobby saw some of the posts on this forum (new to the hobby) they wouldnt ever start up a marine tank, for instance, can you clarify in simple terms what denitrification and nitrification means, and why robust cycling is important, and how you achieve this, i keep seeing you say these things wooden, and the fact testing at cycling stage isnt neccessary, you suggest just testing nitrite on day 14 and 35 and no need for any other tests, how does a complete novice know if his cycle is robust enough if he or she only tests nitrite twice and nothing else? i check this with ammonia testing and ammonia readings, i cant work out how with just nitrite tests just twice, and how would they? whats robust in your opinion, what reading? and if just nitrite tested then how would they achieve this? i think we agree that ammonia is deadly and shouldnt be an issue as preparation for intented livestock is important, so how does a newcommer now if ammonia is present and media cycled robustly?

Nitrification is the most basic aspect of this hobby and even a newbie should know it very well.

Not every newbie is 13 years old.

Even a newbie should learn how to use nitrification well, flexibly and nimbly. It is tied to many aspects of this hobby. When you QT you have to know nitrification very well, in particular.

Often, one might think one is giving a simplification or the essence, but it may well lead to misconception that the stifles the skill development of a newbie for the years to come.

This is a rather complex hobby; even a newbie should put in the effort to learn many things.

 

[wooden_reefer]

if a 13/14/15 year old newcommer to the hobby saw some of the posts on this forum (new to the hobby) they wouldnt ever start up a marine tank, for instance, can you clarify in simple terms what denitrification and nitrification means

Are you saying you don't know or a newbie is not supposed to know?

A brand newbie should know what nitrification is for sure.

I have explained how to cycle robustly many times.

How do you make sure that at the end of a cycle the medium can handle at least 1 ppm N ammonia per day in your tank?

Well, by putting several ppm's ammonia into the container you cycle with several times a few days apart toward the end of the cycle.

Do you want the container you cycle in to be the tank itself or some other container? Can you think of the difference between "cycling a tank" and cycling the medium intended for a tank in another container? What are some practical differences? Think about it.

 

[wooden_reefer]

Even for the newbie, the objective ought to be that no livestock (perhaps including lives on recently collected LR) is ever exposed to significant ammonia.

If you say then you should therefore stock slowly, period, then how would your livestock not be exposed to significant ammonia. You are simply hoping that some exposure to ammonia is bearable for the duration of the mini-cycle. This is the intrinsic assumption and belief by many.

I am saying that even a newbie can avoid livestock exposing to any ammonia ever for any duration. There can easily be no new tank sydrome at all, whatsoever. This is the 5 gal bucket continual cycling that I outlined earlier. One can stock slowly and still have no ammonia at all.

But I stock quickly and have no ammonia for livestock whatsoever.

 

[ChuckG]

There are few benefits in cycling with recently collected live rock. It is better to cycle with dead stuffs first and put the recently collected LR into a place that already has a well-cycled medium.

But a lot of people cycle with recently collect LR.

I like this.. which could prevent alot of other things from dying in and on the rock. All this die off and subsequent organics are so hard to get out of the aquarium once they are in (especially if encapusulated within rock) which is probably a large contributer to why so many have problems with nussaince algae down the road.

If practices were to change and more people go back to cycling with a sterile mediums, for instance dry rock like like BRS or Marco and a SSB then all the fauna on any live rock added later has much better chance of surviving.

 

[wooden_reefer]

This would assume that there is an insufficient supply of bacteria to handle the increased bioload. This is simply not true. The bacteria continue to thrive without any input on our part.

Why do you think so?

In a way you are right in that bioload increases due to growth of the livestock, but apart from this why do you think your nitrification activity in a tank continue to grow?

I don't think so. There has to be increase in ammonia produced (not necessarily accumulated) for nitrification activity to keep expanding. Otherwise, nitrification activity will stabilize. Why not? What is your reason to suggest otherwise?


This is not an exact science. Mini-cycling is really OK if it is really mini. Even long after a cycle, I'd say a sudden increase of 15% of bioload (or 15% removal of medium conversely) would likely be OK. One can always feed a little less for a week or two, to say the least. Going from 5 units of bioload to 10 units suddenly would not be mini, going from 9 to 10 likely will be.

Sometimes one has to go from 5 units to 50 units. This is when one has to add a very large fish into an existing sparsely stocked tank a year after the cycle. What is one to do in this situation? Gradualism alone in this case can lead to very vivid calamity, not just subtle ills.

 

[wooden_reefer]

"This would assume that there is an insufficient supply of bacteria to handle the increased bioload. This is simply not true. The bacteria continue to thrive without any input on our part."

If you were right on this, the "new tank syndrome" would have been a figment of the imagination.

If you had not cycled robustly and/or cycle separately and continually (the gal bucket method I mentioned), the new tank syndrome can last a very long time, six months or more.

It is very easy to kill the new tank syndrome dead in six or fewer weeks.

 

[IslandCrow]

Why do you think so?

In a way you are right in that bioload increases due to growth of the livestock, but apart from this why do you think your nitrification activity in a tank continue to grow?

You may have to re-read my post. I did not say that nitrification activity would grow. I said it would continue to happen. Live rock has various organisms that are continuing to live, grow and die. This is why I agree with you that another ammonia source would be necessary if you plan on heavily or even moderately stocking the tank all at once. If you're only adding a fish or two at a time, however, I don't see why this is necessary. I guess I've always been the conservative type, and I would never suggest to someone starting up their first marine tank to add more than a couple fish right away. There are too many inherent risks if you don't have the experience to do this correctly.

"This would assume that there is an insufficient supply of bacteria to handle the increased bioload. This is simply not true. The bacteria continue to thrive without any input on our part."

If you were right on this, the "new tank syndrome" would have been a figment of the imagination.

If you had not cycled robustly and/or cycle separately and continually (the gal bucket method I mentioned), the new tank syndrome can last a very long time, six months or more.

It is very easy to kill the new tank syndrome dead in six or fewer weeks.

You'll have to refresh me on the exact definition of the "new tank syndrome", but I think I get the general drift. Your bucket method is quite interesting, and I'd actually like to try it someday, but I'm not quite sure I believe that method is any more likely to create stability in a tank any faster. I believe this stability is what we really want in our tanks, where the nitrogen cycle is nearly perfectly balanced. . .i.e. there's no more ammonia being produced than the nitrifying bacteria can handle, and there's no more bacteria than is necessary for nitrification. Of course, there are many other elements you want in balance, so I admit this is an oversimplification. The fact is, temporarily overloading the tank with ammonia does not create this balance. Unless you know exactly how much ammonia you need to add, it simply tilts the scales in the opposite direction. My theory is that a tank with cured live rock is already pretty close to balanced. If we're talking uncured, it's really best to cure it outside the tank, but again, once that is complete, we're pretty close to balanced once it's added into a tank. Anything we insert into the nitrogen cycle after that throws it out of balance, and nature has to correct for our actions. My personal preference is not to tip the scales too much in either way so that balance can be regained very quickly. Large shifts in the nitrogen balance (i.e. adding a large amount of fish or other ammonia source) is only going to prolong this "new tank syndrome", not reduce it.

 

[Michael]

Are you saying you don't know or a newbie is not supposed to know?

A brand newbie should know what nitrification is for sure.

I have explained how to cycle robustly many times.

How do you make sure that at the end of a cycle the medium can handle at least 1 ppm N ammonia per day in your tank?

Well, by putting several ppm's ammonia into the container you cycle with several times a few days apart toward the end of the cycle.

Do you want the container you cycle in to be the tank itself or some other container? Can you think of the difference between "cycling a tank" and cycling the medium intended for a tank in another container? What are some practical differences? Think about it.

i know, and im capable of setting up a tank for whatever purpose i require it for, i just think your posts on cycling media for the marine aquarium are worded in a way which makes it seem harder than it really is, lots of sentences but no impact for the newcommer, perhaps its just the way i interpet your comments, no offense, but i think with your knowledge you could teach a lot easier by explaining things differently, anyhow thanks for the reply.

 

[Michael]

This is a rather complex hobby; even a newbie should put in the effort to learn many things.

yep i agree, totally agree, however id suggest 60-70% of the newcommers to this forum (new to the hobby) have no idea at all, they have spoken to a lfs and have a 55 or 75 gal up and running with 3 damsels in it, 40 pounds of uncured rock, a yellow tang and 120 hermit crabs,no test kits and 1 powerhead, we need to educate them at this stage and hopefully others will not make the same mistakes, hence my thoughts about basic education for these sometimes youngsters who know absolutely nothing at all, in an ideal world they wouldnt be able to set up without passing a test haha, but its just not going to happen. although your instructing them with this, it seems a little confusing imo for this type of reefer, as your very very experienced you cant understand why i say this as its just so easy for you, this is why i always point a newcommer to waterkeepers sticky, its plain, simple and easy to understand, you could add to it im sure, i like your method, especially the bag of aragonite or crushed coral or similar for a quarenteen tank.

 

[Michael]

If you say then you should therefore stock slowly, period, then how would your livestock not be exposed to significant ammonia. You are simply hoping that some exposure to ammonia is bearable for the duration of the mini-cycle. This is the intrinsic assumption and belief by many.

many reefers stock slowy with no problems noted at all

But I stock quickly and have no ammonia for livestock whatsoever.

in an ideal situation id like to do the same, but 90% of us cant afford to shell out 5-6 thousand dollars adding everything at once, so adding when we can afford it is a preffered method by most if not nearly all.

 

[Michael]

You do not have to use recently collected LR to cycle even if you eventually use LR as the primary established medium of filtration. You can use a cheap transitional medium and cycle from the dead, then gradually remove it over the course of a few months. If you want to preserve as many lives on the recently collected LR, this is what you should do.

yeah agree again, but how many folk have room t do this? what if you live on a 3rd floor apartment, or a condo? where space is limited, no room for garbage cans full of curing rock, this is why a lot of reefers use live rock already cured, we seem to do ok with this method.

 

[charnkiat]

Hmmm ... okay ... OP here.

Before we go any further, I must say thank you all so much for such overwhelming advices. But I must also say that, as a newbie trying to digest all the information, I am now officially confused. :hmm5:

After reading and re-reading the comments (over and over again), in my humble opinion, I feel that some of the comments may not be relevant to my case. And from all the information kindly given, I'm trying to see what is applicable to a newbie like me. So, if you would, please correct me if I'm wrong on the points below.

1. After adding live rocks to the tank, I should wait for 48 hours then test for ammonia. If the live rocks have some die off, I should get some ammonia readings.

2. If it reads 1ppm or above, then I can just let nature take it course. Ammonia will be converted into nitrite, and then to nitrate. And eventually, my ammonia will be 0, nitrite 0, and I should have some nitrate.

3. If the live rocks don't give me any ammonia, I can add one or two cocktail shrimps and let them decay in the tank. That will definitely give me some ammonia.

4. Now this point I'm not certain. If I plan to start small, I don't really have to worry whether I initiate the cycle with 1ppm ammonia or 5ppm ammonia. (My plan is to start stocking with 3 little blue/green chromis, then a month later add a pair of clowns.)

5. As a newbie who should and will stock slowly, I don't have to worry if my system can handle robust cycle. And I plan to stock real slow - one small fish per month.

6. During each month of waiting, I can make the system ready for the new fish by gradually feeding a little more to increase the bacteria.

Once again, thank you for all the advice.

 

[sowellj]

I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong way to do this, in the end it will get you where you need to be. But, to me the addition of shrimp seems somewhat outdated if you are using established live rock. If you have established live rock ... the bacteria you are trying to form via addition of a shrimp are already there. Why cause yourself more problems by overloading the system w/nutrients. If the liverock was shipped to you, the die off alone should be sufficient to fuel a satisfactory cycle.

 

[IslandCrow]

My apologies to the OP. . .we definitely let this get a bit off topic and did a pretty good job hijacking your thread to go into a bunch of theory. I'm glad we haven't run you off.

Anyway, it sounds like you pulled all the important parts out of our admittedly very confusing responses. Although what you propose isn't my personal preference, you have a very viable plan here that should work just fine. I definitely wouldn't get too wrapped up in exactly how much ammonia you're reading (1ppm, 5ppm, whatever), and hopefully most everyone can agree on that point at least. Just take whatever you've got after adding the shrimp and go with it. The only final point I'd throw in is that I'd want to see zero ammonia and more than likely 0 nitrite for for at least a couple consecutive weeks before adding the initial livestock. I have a feeling that's already your plan. Now, on occasion, it seems some people will have low levels of nitrites (1-2ppm) for awhile, and that's not necessarily a big concern. Ammonia is of course the biggie.