Fishless Cycling w/Pure Ammonia (Poll)

[Pandora]

I was wondering about this. I hear about "fishless cycling" promoted with reef tanks, but generally people recommend throwing a piece of shrimp in a tank with no fish, and letting it decompose. There's no question this is a little kinder on the first fish introduced.

When I started out in the hobby, it was with FW. There, most hobbyists still promote fishless cycling, but they never say to throw a piece of shrimp in the tank (or on the barbie ), I think because there are more products to decomposition than just ammonia alone. Many of us promote using pure unscented ammonia (such as that used for cleaning) straight out of the bottle, a technique first explored by Dr. Chris Cow, an organic chemist. Here is a copy of his original article:

http://malawicichlids.com/mw01017.htm

I haven't even really heard about people using this for reef tanks, maybe I just haven't seen the posts. What do you think? And as a SW enthusiast, have you ever heard of/used this technique? Thanks.

 

[ddenham]

I can't imagine it won't work, just be careful how much you put in. I guess the benefit of the dead shrimp is that it continuously provides ammonia, at a steady pace, not in spikes like if you added drops a day. Also the shrimp thing seems a little simpler, just toss it in and let the magic happen. Dead shrimp is easier to find then worring about how pure the ammonia is. Also, in a 75g SW tank I don't think you would need to do a 50-75% water change as it says in the article.

 

[xtrstangx]

I think I did a shrimp in my tank.

FWIW, if you put LR in there, it will cycle itself.. without fish or an external ammonia addition. The LR (cured or uncured) will have enough die off to provide ammonia for a cycle.

 

[Pandora]

Thanks. The thing with using LR alone is that while the die-off supplies some cycling kickstart, I don't think there's enough to sustain it for weeks (though honestly, I've recommended this to people also).

The thing with the shrimp method is again whether or not there are other products of decomposition aside from ammonia (unlike fish waste, which is almost pure ammonia)... like I think there was concern about hydrogen sulfide? Probably negligable, but I don't know for sure...

 

[Shooter7]

I side with just using live rock too. My tank cycled just fine and it doesn't need to go for "weeks". I used the ammonia for FW tanks and it worked quite well. I used just live rock for my SW tanks and that worked quite well also.

 

[jimi323]

I think fishless in some form is the way to go. Even though I regularly hear advice given, mostly at LFS, to use fish to cycle tanks. Even a store that recently moved in my area appear to be using fish to cycle their tanks. Its kind of dissappointing with all the info out there people are still doing this.

 

[Pandora]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6627399#post6627399 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Shooter7
I side with just using live rock too. My tank cycled just fine and it doesn't need to go for "weeks". I used the ammonia for FW tanks and it worked quite well. I used just live rock for my SW tanks and that worked quite well also.

I wonder sometimes that if we just don't notice that we're still getting the tail end of cycling, because SW hobbyists often have bigger tanks, and typically are not guilty of trying such offenses as say, putting 10 fish in a 10 gallon the first week of buying a tank. Just a theory at any rate. In practice, I agree LR seems to work for many people.

Of the people who used pure ammonia in SW, did anyone have any problems?

 

[NCreefwannabe]

Or do what my friend did lol. He had this really mean fish in one of his FW setups that wouldnt leave other fish alone. So he tossed his in the salt tank.... I agree is was a horrible thing to do, but it worked jsut the same. I guess its the same as feeding a fish to your eel.

 

[Pandora]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6629245#post6629245 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by NCreefwannabe
Or do what my friend did lol. He had this really mean fish in one of his FW setups that wouldnt leave other fish alone. So he tossed his in the salt tank.... I agree is was a horrible thing to do, but it worked jsut the same. I guess its the same as feeding a fish to your eel.

I don't think it's the same. A death by predation is a natural and (hopefully) quick death; plus, there's a point to it. Tossing a FW fish into SW would just induce suffering--inhumane and pointless. Why try to "punish" a fish for following their nature?

 

[Shooter7]

I wonder sometimes that if we just don't notice that we're still getting the tail end of cycling

So, what you're saying is that you think that when many say that their tank is cycled it really isn't. I think that might depend on what your definition of being cycled is.

To me, I have a new tank with new water, be it FW or SW, and I get it started up and running with all of whatever it needs. You could put some pure ammonia in the FW and live rock in the SW and wait...
You get the elevated ammonia level for awhile, gradually you get the elevated nitrites and the ammo starts to taper off, you then get the further lowering to zero of ammo and nitrites drop to zero as well with the accompanying increase in nitrates. At this point I consider my tank cycled. It has reached an equilibrium within the confines of its own little world. It was not, however, cycled to a specific bioload of fish, but to what "food" it has had available which might be equal to a fish or two stocking load. If we were to do your example and plop a large number of fish into this tank, you would disrupt the equilibrium considerably and most likely have a resultant second "cycle" as your tank adjusts now to the invading large bioload - i.e. ammonia flood. If you stock your tank as you are supposed to, though, a fish or two at a time and then wait a couple weeks before adding more, your tank doesn't do what I consider to be a cycle, the bacterial population merely adjusts its population slightly to bring things back into equilibrium.

 

[Pandora]

Shooter: I could not have said it better myself. I TOTALLY agree with a lot of what you said, as pertaining to cycling being relative to bioload of fish and water volume, and this is why I am always saying that cycling is a dynamic process... I think a misunderstanding of this is why people are left scratching their heads after a "fully cycled" tank that is moved or had new inhabitants suddenly has issues.

Back to the LR and tail end of cycling thing... I suspect that there are much fewer cases of "new tank syndrome" that are recognized, because the "spikes" are really tiny speedbumps, that are transitory, may not be caught in time by testing kits (if the user tests at all, that is). For all intents and purposes, I think they are harmless because they are so fleeting, and there is so much substrate (in the form of LR & LS) for the nitrifying bacteria population to multiply in and "catch up". Just throwing some ideas out there! In practice, again, using LR alone has worked for so many people... myself included.

 

[Shooter7]

I TOTALLY agree with a lot of what you said

Uh oh....now I'm waiting for the - "but......."

 

[Pandora]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6631574#post6631574 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Shooter7
Uh oh....now I'm waiting for the - "but......."

What, what? A person can't just be agreeable on RC??

 

[MiddletonMark]

I don't see the reason for an additional source of Ammonia besides live rock.

In my experience, none is needed - and given we're working with live rock [where life is important, life which would be negatively affected by any spikes] ... I don't see the point in forcing a spike in the cycle.

You realize, once all that food for each specific bacteria is gone, that the #'s of that bacteria die-off quite a bit? So while your large Ammonia spike will be followed by a large increase in bacteria to deal with it ... a week later, when there's not that much ammonia, the bacteria levels would likely fall to whatever the maintained level is ... and thus, you just caused a bloom, IMO/IM understanding not a permanent increase.

I dunno, but it seems like any effect to spike things is so that one can stock the tank quickly - a poor idea anyway in SW tanks.

Just my take, having not used fish, shrimp, or ammonia for cycling any of my tanks.

 

[Pandora]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6631662#post6631662 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
I don't see the reason for an additional source of Ammonia besides live rock.

In my experience, none is needed - and given we're working with live rock [where life is important, life which would be negatively affected by any spikes] ... I don't see the point in forcing a spike in the cycle.

You realize, once all that food for each specific bacteria is gone, that the #'s of that bacteria die-off quite a bit? So while your large Ammonia spike will be followed by a large increase in bacteria to deal with it ... a week later, when there's not that much ammonia, the bacteria levels would likely fall to whatever the maintained level is ... and thus, you just caused a bloom, IMO/IM understanding not a permanent increase.

I dunno, but it seems like any effect to spike things is so that one can stock the tank quickly - a poor idea anyway in SW tanks.

Just my take, having not used fish, shrimp, or ammonia for cycling any of my tanks.

Actually, if you read the technique, there's not a huge spike, they're just drops per day, and these levels are maintained on a daily basis, there is no sudden shift. I don't think that any life would be negatively impacted by the amount that is added... keep in mind, there are no fish or inverts in it at this point, and the only bacteria we are trying to promote use ammonia for food.

As far as maintaining the levels, think of it this way. When you store or transport LR, there is inevitable die-off of the needed bacterial populations we are trying to promote. So it won't be up to the maximum levels as can be maintained in a healthy, established tank.

 

[MiddletonMark]

But what does it matter, unless one adds a huge amount of bioload immediately thereafter?

I guess I just question the point of all this hassle - when IME it's not needed.

I can take my rock that's stored in the basement in QT tank ... with nothing more than snails, no feeding, for months at a time. Add a fish [QT], without concern for a cycle or the slightest problem.

Given this has never caused me a problem, or a nutrient spike - I guess it seems like a lot of work is being added to artificially increase bacterial populations - which may not be necessary in the end.

IMO, it's like adding a heater to a house in the florida keys - are you really ever likely to need it? If not, why do it at all?

 

[Tomzpc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6627357#post6627357 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Pandora
Thanks. The thing with using LR alone is that while the die-off supplies some cycling kickstart, I don't think there's enough to sustain it for weeks (though honestly, I've recommended this to people also).

I disagree. Rock alone is fine IME. Also, if you start a tank with cured rock then it is quite possibly (and likely) to have no cycle. You don't HAVE to have a cycle.

 

[Pandora]

Mark, I see a lot of logic in what you and the others are saying... I thought of this also when I was thinking about the subject (didn't post it to push people into thinking using raw ammonia was necessarily better... it was more that I had the question myself of IF it was a process (LR alone) that could even be improved on, and if so, what were the reasons it was not used in SW more often). I think when it comes down to it, in many ways, we in the SW hobby do a lot of cycling WITH fish, but it is not as harsh on fish because reef tanks demand low stocking anyway.

Tom: A "cycle" really means the building of the population of denitrifying population in the live rock. From that perspective, adding fully established, healthy live rock is kickstarting the cycle anyway. By definition all these systems go through one; it's just a matter of what you see with your test kits and how you interpret what stage of this process you're in.

 

[AdidaKev]

I once set up a saltwater tank for a class where we used the non-fish method. We did not use live rock, though. We put pure ammonia in the tank along with a bacteria culture to break it down. Unfortunately, since there was nothing but crushed coral in the tank, it took a LONG time for the tank to cycle (it was over 8 weeks). However, if this method had been used with live rock, I'm sure it would have gone much quicker.