Fish keep on dyeing on me

[wooden_reefer]

What is the difference between theses balls of crushed coral you make versus bio-balls? Basically all you are doing is creating an environment for the bacteria to colonize. Same thing is achieved with the bio-balls.

Cost and possibly some buffering capacity which is important (enough) for fish. About $10, enough for use to stock a 220 gal tank.

I have never used bioballs.

I have never spent any money on things that are very obvious DIY projects. The whole idea of "trickle filter" since the late 1980's and before the advent of live rock filtration was good but was too obvious to justify spending money on.

Wet-dry is very easy to DIY.

 

[RBU1]

Cost and possibly some buffering capacity which is important (enough) for fish. About $10, enough for use to stock a 220 gal tank.

I have never used bioballs.

I have never spent any money on things that are very obvious DIY projects. The whole idea of "trickle filter" since the late 1980's and before the advent of live rock filtration was good but was too obvious to justify spending money on.

Wet-dry is very easy to DIY.

So basically your answer is yes the balls you make do the same function as bio-balls without spending the money...

No disrespect...But you never really seem to answer a question. You always seem to go on to some story and explanation that makes no sense to me. Maybe if you keep it simple more people will understand....

 

[wooden_reefer]

So basically your answer is yes the balls you make do the same function as bio-balls without spending the money...

No disrespect...But you never really seem to answer a question. You always seem to go on to some story and explanation that makes no sense to me. Maybe if you keep it simple more people will understand....

If you don't undertand the part about wet-dry or crushed coral or shell wrapped in nylon, to simplfy things, you can use a totally submerged setup and polyester floss as the medium. Or you can use cut up sponges as the medium. You can use bioballs if you already have them, or have bought them cheap used, or you don't mind the costs. This is not the optimal setup but is quite enough for a few fish and as a first setup for the first experience. You can just do the HOT power box setup or canister filter setup as I mentioned earlier.

It is very easy. You need a bacteria seed, a source of ammonia applied several times during the cycle, circulation and gaseous exchange. About the ammonia source, it can be from decay of protein, urine, or an ammonium salt. Do you know what I mean here? What else do you not know about cycling?

I think you will understand the parts about wet-dry setup and crushed coral wrapped by nylon easier later. These are not essential but just to optimize IME. May be you should do the simplier first for the experience. It works quite well, though may be not quite the best.

 

[krowleey]

First, QT is different in that even eight weeks is short in comparison to DT, organic accumulation is not significant for one or two fish in QT. And if there are many fish in QT, I would change some water in the middle.

Second, you are not addressing the danger of ammonia. It is acute and is far more toxic than any organic accumulation.

If you think organics should be removed, you can do some water change in QT as you would for DT. In DT, you remove 25% of the organics by 25% water change, for example. However, ammonia is very toxic in QT, it has to be removed and better not by WC but by bacterial activity whenever possible. With WC, you can never hope to remove even most of the ammonia. 50% WC removes 50% of the ammonia at best, as ammonia generation is not all by excretion and is often not linearly with time due to decay.

To plan to remove ammonia by water change is an atrocious idea in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, athough in a bind with no choice this is what one should do. One never plans to remove ammonia by WC, it is very foolish.

If your do not have nitrification in QT, your water change needs will be vastly different than in DT.

I suggest that you really think about the issue.

who is arguing that having a cycled QT is a bad idea? the argument is coming from stating you do not need to do WC in QT when the QT is cycled. This is bad husbandry practice, and unfair to the animals. and to give this as advice is reckless. In a true QT tank you will have a BB tank, and as organics build, your water quality declines. that is why most people battle ammonia in QT during copper or hypo treatments. I like Leebca's advice that even when you have a cycled QT you still do large water changes every 2-3 days, you simply can;t go wrong. With your method you are asking for trouble, including ammonia spikes that can and will kill your fish.

 

[wooden_reefer]

the argument is coming from stating you do not need to do WC in QT when the QT is cycled. This is bad husbandry practice

OK OK

Do your husbandry then.

Just do WC in QT as you would in DT, the same frequency and extent to remove organics and nitrate.

No argument.


But...

The accumlation of organics and nitrate in eight weeks of QT for two medium fish in a 20 gal QT tank is not important to fish whatsoever, IME.

 

[RBU1]

who is arguing that having a cycled QT is a bad idea? the argument is coming from stating you do not need to do WC in QT when the QT is cycled. This is bad husbandry practice, and unfair to the animals. and to give this as advice is reckless. In a true QT tank you will have a BB tank, and as organics build, your water quality declines. that is why most people battle ammonia in QT during copper or hypo treatments. I like Leebca's advice that even when you have a cycled QT you still do large water changes every 2-3 days, you simply can;t go wrong. With your method you are asking for trouble, including ammonia spikes that can and will kill your fish.

It is not neccesary to perform water changes like that in a properly functioning QT. If I am doing a 14 day copper treatment I am not changing water every 3 days....

I went 22 days using Paraguard and never changed a drop of water. I did get an amonnia spike that I am going to attribute to the treatment. I added some more bacteria in a bottle and the amonnia level is back down now.

I understand were wooden reefer is coming from and I agree that proper bacteria in the QT is real imprtant. I guess I just don't understand how to accomplish this adding amonnia and stuff to a tank that is running with fish????

I guess if he/she detailed how they do it maybe it would make more sense. Like do they take these socks full of crushed coral and leave them in the DT for a month the put them in the QT? I don't know....

 

[wooden_reefer]

I don't want to detract from the focus.

As long as you cycle for the QT, I am OK with doing some WC in QT during the eight weeks of QT.

But I can't help but to bring out a simple math question.

Water 1. DT water after two years of 25% WC each month.

Water 2. QT water after eight weeks without any water change.

Which water will tend to have more dissolved organics? No easy to say for sure.

Each time you do a 25% WC, you remove only 25% of the organics. They keep accumulating.

Based on math, WC in DT for the first two months after stability may well be not essential.

Actually, a precise statement can be made.

When the accumulated organics is equal to what is removed in the WC, periodic stablity, with predictable increase within the period of WC interval, will be achieved.

 

[wooden_reefer]

"I understand were wooden reefer is coming from and I agree that proper bacteria in the QT is real imprtant. I guess I just don't understand how to accomplish this adding amonnia and stuff to a tank that is running with fish????"

No no No


You cycle in advance without livestock and if applicable in a separate container if the QT is in use.

It seems that even the most obvious to me cannot be assumed.

 

[RBU1]

"I understand were wooden reefer is coming from and I agree that proper bacteria in the QT is real imprtant. I guess I just don't understand how to accomplish this adding amonnia and stuff to a tank that is running with fish????"

No no No


You cycle in advance without livestock and if applicable in a separate container if the QT is in use.

It seems that even the most obvious to me cannot be assumed.

Correct no assumptions please.....To cycle a tank I just let it run....Ususally kick it off with some bacteria in a bottle....

If I need to put fish in a tank that is a brand new setup I use more bacteria in a bottle and just keep an eye on things....

 

[wooden_reefer]

Correct no assumptions please.....To cycle a tank I just let it run....Ususally kick it off with some bacteria in a bottle....

If I need to put fish in a tank that is a brand new setup I use more bacteria in a bottle and just keep an eye on things....

I have never have faith in bacteria in a bottle.

Nitrification bacteria does not have a rigorous resting stage, unlike some patheogenic bacteria. I think you cannot have enough from a bottle.

Plus it costs nothing to cycle.

You can monitor, but if ammonia starts to be detectable, all you have is WC.

I don't want to just monitor. I want to actively and confidently prevent ammonia

 

[wooden_reefer]

"I guess if he/she detailed how they do it maybe it would make more sense. Like do they take these socks full of crushed coral and leave them in the DT for a month the put them in the QT? I don't know...."

This is better than no nitrification at all, but nothing can replace robust cycling. Bacteria population will not grow to great density if ammonia has not been enough for long enough time.

If you remove a fish in DT and remove just enough filiter medium in DT, it might work. Otherwise, you cannot have some nitrification bacteria and believe that you have enough.

In general, it is better to cycle deliberately in advance for the QT.

In stead of boosting nitrification from a bottle of preserved bacteria (that allegedly exist), it is better to keep medium cycled in advance on hand when you think that the need is not remote. You can add cycled medium instead of bacteria from a bottle.

 

[RBU1]

"I guess if he/she detailed how they do it maybe it would make more sense. Like do they take these socks full of crushed coral and leave them in the DT for a month the put them in the QT? I don't know...."

This is better than no nitrification at all, but nothing can replace robust cycling. Bacteria population will not grow to great density if ammonia has not been enough for long enough time.

If you remove a fish in DT and remove just enough filiter medium in DT, it might work. Otherwise, you cannot have some nitrification bacteria and believe that you have enough.

In general, it is better to cycle deliberately in advance for the QT.

In stead of boosting nitrification from a bottle of preserved bacteria (that allegedly exist), it is better to keep medium cycled in advance on hand when you think that the need is not remote. You can add cycled medium instead of bacteria from a bottle.

OK so to put this in my understanding....I should make some of your orange size stocking filled balls of crushed coral and put them in my DT sump? When I need a bacteria boost on my QT just place them in the QT.....RIGHT?

 

[Toddrtrex]

Cost and possibly some buffering capacity which is important (enough) for fish. About $10, enough for use to stock a 220 gal tank.

I have never used bioballs.

I have never spent any money on things that are very obvious DIY projects. The whole idea of "trickle filter" since the late 1980's and before the advent of live rock filtration was good but was too obvious to justify spending money on.

Wet-dry is very easy to DIY.

If you are getting any buffering from using CC you have bigger issues --- the pH shouldn't be low enough to cause any buffering.