Water Changes
- Thread starter oscarslr
- Start date
wooden_reefer
New member
There is generally no need to change any water during cycling.
In fact, ammonia and nitrite levels should be allowed to drop by bacterial activity, not water change. This is how bacteria populations grow to max.
In fact, ammonia and nitrite levels should be allowed to drop by bacterial activity, not water change. This is how bacteria populations grow to max.
Randall_James
Premium Member
what ever it takes to keep ammonia levels at tolerable levels (.20 or less IMO)
Allowing them to climb higher than that will only cause excessive die off and prolong the cycle... no point in killing off all the diversity that you spent so much money on in the first place huh?
Allowing them to climb higher than that will only cause excessive die off and prolong the cycle... no point in killing off all the diversity that you spent so much money on in the first place huh?
coast2coast7390
Moved On
no water changes during cycling but after i would do a 15 to 25 percent change every week to 2 weeks
Randall_James
Premium Member
Well you may do as you like, however if you are going to go with "the experience of others" here is a quote from someone that has setup probably 1000 or more tanks with fresh live rock.. (not to debate the knowledge of the above posters) But research and due diligence will save you a ton of headaches.
As per TBS: (and they suggest an even lower level than I do)
As per TBS: (and they suggest an even lower level than I do)
wooden_reefer
New member
Often the first phase of decay from uncured live rock will give ammonia way in excess of 1 ppm.
Actually I quite agree that uncured live rock should be exposed to as low a level of ammonia as possible. This is why I think one should not cycle with uncured live rock. Ideally, one should cycle with another medium (and then gradually withdraw that medium if it is not intended to be permanant.) This way the uncured live rock won't be exposed to elevated ammonia.
Ammonia level during cycling need not be high, but there must be accumulation for enough duration. 0.2 ppm for long enough duration will work fine.
If one is not aware of or not caring enough to preserve biodiversity on uncured live rock (and use it for cycling), then it is a bit inconsistent to want to maintain 0.2 ppm ammonia during the rest of the cycle.
Best is to not use uncured live rock for cycling.
In a few posts people are doing that by necessity. The once live rock has become dry and devoid of decayable stuffs, so one cycles with such clean and dead rock with bacteria seed and a source of ammonia. Those with DIY rock will do the same.
I will never cycle with uncured live rock, for the sake of biodiversity, or incidental livestock, on the uncured live rock.
Actually I quite agree that uncured live rock should be exposed to as low a level of ammonia as possible. This is why I think one should not cycle with uncured live rock. Ideally, one should cycle with another medium (and then gradually withdraw that medium if it is not intended to be permanant.) This way the uncured live rock won't be exposed to elevated ammonia.
Ammonia level during cycling need not be high, but there must be accumulation for enough duration. 0.2 ppm for long enough duration will work fine.
If one is not aware of or not caring enough to preserve biodiversity on uncured live rock (and use it for cycling), then it is a bit inconsistent to want to maintain 0.2 ppm ammonia during the rest of the cycle.
Best is to not use uncured live rock for cycling.
In a few posts people are doing that by necessity. The once live rock has become dry and devoid of decayable stuffs, so one cycles with such clean and dead rock with bacteria seed and a source of ammonia. Those with DIY rock will do the same.
I will never cycle with uncured live rock, for the sake of biodiversity, or incidental livestock, on the uncured live rock.
Last edited:
Randall_James
Premium Member
huh? Many people purchase uncured rock, and I think it is a great way to go. You can cure the rock and preserve the biodiversity that makes a reef tank successful rather than let a third party just dump the rock in a tank for 30 days and ignore the levels..
I guess I do not understand why you would not use "uncured" rock during the cycle, you certainly are not going to put "uncured" rock in a cycled tank with livestock...
I guess I do not understand why you would not use "uncured" rock during the cycle, you certainly are not going to put "uncured" rock in a cycled tank with livestock...
wooden_reefer
New member
I'd put the uncured live rock (with its biodiveristy or incidental livestock) into a cycled tank that does not yet contain deliberately included (separately paid for) livestock, and wait to see what I really have.
The idea is that elevated level of ammonia reduces biodiversity, kills some of the incidental livestock on the live rock. Most people don't bother, I understand.
Randall_James
Premium Member
you said that there is no need to do water changes in a tank during the cycle.... I completely disagree with that statement. In a tank that sees elevated ammonia levels, it needs reduced regardless of the cycle or not..
And i would also avoid adding uncured rock to any cycled tank regardless of what is in the tank. It should be cured separately to protect the already cycled tank, rock and what ever else from anything that the new rock could be bringing in. A Rubbermaid container works great for cycling additional rock to a tank. Ammonia levels should be maintained at safe levels there as well.
wooden_reefer
New member
Going back to the original question, how does one maintain 0.2 ppm ammonia by water change?
Suppose ammonia is 2.0 ppm in day 3, how much water should one change?
If decay has completed, ammonia level can not be kept at constant low, it seems.
Should one then add measured amounts of ammonia? Nitrosonomas population constantly increases and a variable amount of ammonia is converted to nitrite.
I quite agree that high ammonia concentration is not necessary, but how does one maintain a low concentration for extended period of time? So one or several ammonia peaks seems most practical.
Suppose ammonia is 2.0 ppm in day 3, how much water should one change?
If decay has completed, ammonia level can not be kept at constant low, it seems.
Should one then add measured amounts of ammonia? Nitrosonomas population constantly increases and a variable amount of ammonia is converted to nitrite.
I quite agree that high ammonia concentration is not necessary, but how does one maintain a low concentration for extended period of time? So one or several ammonia peaks seems most practical.
wooden_reefer
New member
The only reason why ammonia level should be kept at a low level during cycling is to kill fewer lives on the Live rock. Otherwise, why should ammonia level be kept low during cycling?
To preserve the most lives on the live rock, one should not use uncured live rock to cycle.
When cycling with uncured live rock, where does the ammonia come for the most part? From death of lives on the live rock.
To preserve the most lives on the live rock, one should not use uncured live rock to cycle.
When cycling with uncured live rock, where does the ammonia come for the most part? From death of lives on the live rock.
Last edited:
Randall_James
Premium Member
Ammonia levels drop in direct proportion to water change volume.
if you have 100G of water at .40 and you do a 50% water change, the ammonia level will drop 50% to .20 (a safe level)
t is not uncommon to have to do 100% water change in a new tank. Even a basic quarantine tank will require 50 to 100% water changes between day 2 and 3 in an emergency setup (tank was not pre-cycled)
The concern is not to "maintain" an ammonia level, it is to avoid any excessive ammonia level. Bacterial populations wax and wane according to bioload applied by fish, food added or any other organic in the tank...
if you have 100G of water at .40 and you do a 50% water change, the ammonia level will drop 50% to .20 (a safe level)
t is not uncommon to have to do 100% water change in a new tank. Even a basic quarantine tank will require 50 to 100% water changes between day 2 and 3 in an emergency setup (tank was not pre-cycled)
The concern is not to "maintain" an ammonia level, it is to avoid any excessive ammonia level. Bacterial populations wax and wane according to bioload applied by fish, food added or any other organic in the tank...
wooden_reefer
New member
If cycling is NOT taking place and there is no bacterial growth (and decay has completed) then you are correct.
Incidentally, while the bacterial populations wax and wane, they do so quite slowly. Nitrification bacteria do not starve to death easily.
If nitrosonomas die quickly of starvation, the cycling process would have to be modified. Bear in mind that at least for about two weeks between nitrite peak and zero, there is no ammonia for the nitrosonomas to feed on. One generally do not need to add ammonia between nitrite peak and zero, because nitrosonomas won't die of starvation for those couple of weeks.
Nitrification capacity does not diminish significantly in three weeks of idle, IME, possibly much longer.
Last edited:
aquarius77
In Memoriam
I had ammonia sky high when i cured my rock and i would have had to buy a pallet of salt to do all the water changes to keep ammonia that low. If you bought uncured rock or had cured rock shipped your going to have die off and ammonia will skyrocket, you wont be able to keep it below .20 IMO. TBS ships in water to preserve the life (corals, inverts, possibly even fish)on/in the rock, if you have money for tbs rock you can afford a pallet of salt i guess...
Do a waterchange when it smells so bad you cant take it anymore. I would cure my rock seperate from my tank, its a nasty process.
Do a waterchange when it smells so bad you cant take it anymore. I would cure my rock seperate from my tank, its a nasty process.
wooden_reefer
New member
I know, a lot of people do. But that doesn't make it logical.
I won't use uncured live rock to cycle, not by death of some lives on the rock. The lives on the live rock is a source of biodiversity.
Those who cycle from dry and clean live rock (from old former systems) and those who use DIY rock are likely cycling without uncured live rock, with just bacteria seed and virtually free source of ammonia.
wooden_reefer
New member
Yes, I usually cycle in the garage and do a 100% water change after cycling.
What smells bad is not the ammonia, but other products of decay.
This shows how silly the whole idea of cycling with uncured live rock is.
One pays big bucks for live rock for the lives on it, but not the nitrification bacteria though. Nitrification bacteria seed can be obtained so easily.
wooden_reefer
New member
I agree with the idea of avoiding dieoff (period), but one should not categorically shun prolonging a cycle.
Prolonging a cycle in such as way is usually a good thing, prudence. This is true when it comes to a FO tank with large fish.
What happens when a cycle is prolonged in such as way? It becomes more robust, greater nitrification capacity is achieved at the end of the cycle. I would think that a higher nitrification capacity is less pertinent in a reef tank than in a FO tank with large fish.
For a FO tank, especially one intended for large fish after cycling, one wants the cycle to be prolonged in such as way, with repeated exposure to ammonia.
Randall_James
Premium Member
To the original poster... do your research and talk with whomever you purchase your rock from. They are going to want you happy with your purchase and obtain the best results. This is so that you tell your friends etc about the great product.
I would invite you to call them (most welcome these calls) and discuss the curing process etc.
Alternately there are a number of books that outline the process very well (readingtrees.com) and I think you will find that not a one of them says to "not do water changes"
It does not require a pallett of salt, it requires some patience and diligence to remove dead sponges when the occur (most common issue IME)
The comment "What happens when a cycle is prolonged in such as way? It becomes more robust, greater nitrification capacity is achieved at the end of the cycle" is rather moot as bacteria redouble at an exponential rate and at the demand of the system.
Most old time reefers will tell you about "transient" ammonia spikes that only last a couple hours due to the fact that bacteria reproduce to eliminate the "spike" in hours
Good luck (I realize that your tank is already cycled by your other posts but do be aware that you do not want excessive ammonia levels in a tank at any time)
I would invite you to call them (most welcome these calls) and discuss the curing process etc.
Alternately there are a number of books that outline the process very well (readingtrees.com) and I think you will find that not a one of them says to "not do water changes"
It does not require a pallett of salt, it requires some patience and diligence to remove dead sponges when the occur (most common issue IME)
The comment "What happens when a cycle is prolonged in such as way? It becomes more robust, greater nitrification capacity is achieved at the end of the cycle" is rather moot as bacteria redouble at an exponential rate and at the demand of the system.
Most old time reefers will tell you about "transient" ammonia spikes that only last a couple hours due to the fact that bacteria reproduce to eliminate the "spike" in hours
Good luck (I realize that your tank is already cycled by your other posts but do be aware that you do not want excessive ammonia levels in a tank at any time)
wooden_reefer
New member
If nitrification bacteria can double in population (reproduce) in hours, then the entire procedure of cycling will be moot. This is simply far-fetched. Is this not obvious?
Nitrification bacteria do not reproduce quickly, but those that already exist do not die quickly due to the lack of ammonia or nitrite. They may become active again when ammonia surges.
Last edited:
