Sorry, I never give solutions for those who are starting public aquariums. 
Sounds Sweet.
Sounds Sweet.
Sand??
- Thread starter ericbye
- Start date
pnosko, if anything, I think 60 grit might be too small. Ace/Homeco had two sizes, 60 and 30 grit. The 60 was the smallest, I think, and packs very tightly. I added a bag of aragalive white sand (with some pieces of black) on top of it, and it is quite a bit larger in grain size than the sandblasting sand.
Sandblasting sand is not a carbonate based sand so it will not help with ph maintenance. This is my second tank using this kind of sand and (as far as I know) I have not had any particular known problems with it.
All I would recommend is that you look at regular playsand (if you can not find the carbonate based stuff, i.e. southdown or similar) closely and then also look at the sandblasting sand and compare the two in sizes and looks. I have read that play sand is different sized grains (good or bad, I don't know), that it may contain metal particles (again, I don't know), that it has lots of sharp sided grains (supposedly bad for the critters in it) and is brown in color (most people like the white look). My sand is light grayish in color.
Anyway, it is my preference in sand since I can not get the southdown sand and the aragalive sand is too much money for about 100 pounds of the stuff.
It is just another option for you to consider, if you want a dsb and cannot find/afford carbonate based sand.
Good luck, Frank
Sandblasting sand is not a carbonate based sand so it will not help with ph maintenance. This is my second tank using this kind of sand and (as far as I know) I have not had any particular known problems with it.
All I would recommend is that you look at regular playsand (if you can not find the carbonate based stuff, i.e. southdown or similar) closely and then also look at the sandblasting sand and compare the two in sizes and looks. I have read that play sand is different sized grains (good or bad, I don't know), that it may contain metal particles (again, I don't know), that it has lots of sharp sided grains (supposedly bad for the critters in it) and is brown in color (most people like the white look). My sand is light grayish in color.
Anyway, it is my preference in sand since I can not get the southdown sand and the aragalive sand is too much money for about 100 pounds of the stuff.
It is just another option for you to consider, if you want a dsb and cannot find/afford carbonate based sand.
Good luck, Frank
eric, the sandblasting sand was about $12.00 (US) for a 100 pound bag.
I don't know how much the live sand helps with the cycling? I used a 20 pound bag of it, along with a bottle of "Cycle" to help me cycle my tank. The reason is -- I completely re-did my tank by changing over to all new sand (dry sandblasting sand, about 80 pounds) and new dry, base "tufa" rock (about 30-40 pounds). I did not cycle my tank before putting my fish, along with a few mushrooms and zoas, snails and hermits in. I put it all in at once and did water changes every three days. I have no test kits, so took water samples to my lfs every 3-4 days for them to test for me. I fed lightly for the first couple of weeks. Everything did fine. I did not lose any fish, etc to the cycle.
I would NOT recommend doing it (cycling) this way (not much choice and was recommeded against doing it that way), but I only had 3 fairly small hardy fish that I have had for 3 years (one, a percula clown 6 or 7 years). So, in my opinion, it did help my tank with the cycling, but I have no proof other than that it was a fairly short/easy cycle. I never noticed any particular stress in the fish that I could tell. The ammonia and nitrites were there but did not ever get real high. It has been about 3 months or so since I have changed over. I'm going through all of the processes that new tanks go through right now (brown diatoms/and stringy brown looking algae on the rocks, also, I only use tap water, again not recommended), but the snails (need more) are really chawing (sp) down on that.
Just my experience. Again, I would NOT recommend cycling like that. I really had no choice except to take everything to the lfs which I did not want to do.
Good luck, Frank
I don't know how much the live sand helps with the cycling? I used a 20 pound bag of it, along with a bottle of "Cycle" to help me cycle my tank. The reason is -- I completely re-did my tank by changing over to all new sand (dry sandblasting sand, about 80 pounds) and new dry, base "tufa" rock (about 30-40 pounds). I did not cycle my tank before putting my fish, along with a few mushrooms and zoas, snails and hermits in. I put it all in at once and did water changes every three days. I have no test kits, so took water samples to my lfs every 3-4 days for them to test for me. I fed lightly for the first couple of weeks. Everything did fine. I did not lose any fish, etc to the cycle.
I would NOT recommend doing it (cycling) this way (not much choice and was recommeded against doing it that way), but I only had 3 fairly small hardy fish that I have had for 3 years (one, a percula clown 6 or 7 years). So, in my opinion, it did help my tank with the cycling, but I have no proof other than that it was a fairly short/easy cycle. I never noticed any particular stress in the fish that I could tell. The ammonia and nitrites were there but did not ever get real high. It has been about 3 months or so since I have changed over. I'm going through all of the processes that new tanks go through right now (brown diatoms/and stringy brown looking algae on the rocks, also, I only use tap water, again not recommended), but the snails (need more) are really chawing (sp) down on that.
Just my experience. Again, I would NOT recommend cycling like that. I really had no choice except to take everything to the lfs which I did not want to do.
Good luck, Frank
pnosko
New member
You're both talking like "the cycle" is a singular event. It is not. The cycle most people refer to here is the initial spike of ammonia and nitrates while the bacteria growth catches up to keep them in check. After that it is an on-going event of balancing amounts of ammonia and nitrates with the population of bacteria that can process it. You can't skip this. It may be a prolonged mild one, while exposing (negatively) and livestock present to it. I don't see the logic in attempting to skip this. It's going to happen, quickly or slowly, depending on the conditions.
To add just a little here. There is a difference between cycling and curing. In curing LR we allow the dead material on the rock to decompose. During that process massive amounts of protein are released into the tank and are quickly converted to ammonia. As the cure progresses the nitrifying bacteria in the tank increase greatly in numbers until they are able to keep up with the ammonia loading and convert it to nitrite then nitrate. The nitrifying portion of the process is slow as nitrifying bacteria are autotrophic and reproduce at much lower rates than the heterotrophic bacteria decomposing the decaying matter and converting it into ammonia. There is not quick way to get around this process. The "canned" bacteria sold as supplements are useless as they are few in numbers and reproduce no faster than the nitrifying bacteria that are already on the LR. It is just a matter of time. Water changes do help as they remove protein from the water column and lessen the total load. Skimming during a cure does likewise but neither protocol will entirely avoid the ammonia spikes that occur during a cure.
Now, when one uses rock from an established tank we sidestep the curing process. The LR is already cured and decomposition of dead, organic material on the rock has long ago ceased. The rock is fully armed with nitrifying bacteria and therefore does not have a lag phase like we see with un-cured rock. The net result is we may see no increase in ammonia. This may not be true with nitrite and nitrate as we disturb this process slightly in moving the LR around. Usually it is less than two weeks for everything to get back to normal. When we move LS we often see nitrates climb substantially as we disturb the anoxic processes that occur in a DSB that convert nitrate to nitrogen gas. This may take a month or more to return to previous conditions. Often an algae outbreak will start, not with diatoms, but usually green algae as there is a period of excess nutrients in the water column. Skimming does not help too much here as it really is ineffective in nitrate removal. It does remove some algae however so don't shut it off. The best weapon we have to control this type of outbreak is water changes to remove the nitrates and limit the uptake by algae. This is not 100% effective but it sure helps until the DSB is better able to handle the load. These secondary effect of relocating cured LR are more aptly called the cycle.
Now, when one uses rock from an established tank we sidestep the curing process. The LR is already cured and decomposition of dead, organic material on the rock has long ago ceased. The rock is fully armed with nitrifying bacteria and therefore does not have a lag phase like we see with un-cured rock. The net result is we may see no increase in ammonia. This may not be true with nitrite and nitrate as we disturb this process slightly in moving the LR around. Usually it is less than two weeks for everything to get back to normal. When we move LS we often see nitrates climb substantially as we disturb the anoxic processes that occur in a DSB that convert nitrate to nitrogen gas. This may take a month or more to return to previous conditions. Often an algae outbreak will start, not with diatoms, but usually green algae as there is a period of excess nutrients in the water column. Skimming does not help too much here as it really is ineffective in nitrate removal. It does remove some algae however so don't shut it off. The best weapon we have to control this type of outbreak is water changes to remove the nitrates and limit the uptake by algae. This is not 100% effective but it sure helps until the DSB is better able to handle the load. These secondary effect of relocating cured LR are more aptly called the cycle.
