cycling

[Froil]

ok let me start out by saying I harming any fish in this process!!! I started a tank back up that i had to take down about 6 months ago. bascily i had 50 pounds of rock sitting in a bucket dry. i put that in the tank along with 10 to 15 pounds of good cycled rock, some previously dry aragonite and a protien skimmer. This tank has been running for over a week and i have not seen a drop in the ammonia at all. What can i do beside wait to help move the process along. i know it can take a while, but it hasn't moved at all. the amonia is off the charts. What does adding a cocktail shrimp to the take do other than add more ammonia? and would that be benificial? i have another tank that is going well (although only 10 gallons:) that has been running for 6 months. any help would be great.
Thanks
Fred

[Froil]

forgot to add that i also added 2 pounds of live sand about a week ago also

[DgenR8]

Hi Froil,
I wish I could tell you that there was some magic "bacteria in a bottle" product that would help speed things along. I am not a fan of these products, I feel that they are a complete wast of money.
Your tank will cycle on it's own. Looks like you have all the amonia you need, adding a cocktail shrimp at this point would not help.
Don't change any water, your bio filtration system (live rock and sand) is setting up to handle the current load, water changes will only lessen the load and your bio system will be weaker for it. Leave everything alone untill after your nitrite spikes and drops. This can take time, especially because you are recolonizing all that now dead, but previously live rock with bacteria.
Once your nitrite spikes and drops off, you will see a spike in nitrate. At this point, you can begin doing water changes to export the nitrate.
You don't mention the size of your tank, so I don't know how many Lbs. of L/R you have per gallon or how deep your sand bed is, but my 125 gal cycled for 10 weeks before nitrite dropped off. Don't hurry things, just sit back and wait, Mother Nature will take care of it for you!

[CallATT]

if you add up some Nature's Ocean Bio-Activ Live Aragonite Reed Sand that might help speed up the cycle by adding in some bacteria to your tank. I used it and it sped it up some and it's got some nice multi colored sand hehe

[Hawkdl2]

With all due respect for DgenR8's expertise and participation on these boards, I disagree. There is no logic to the theory that more ammonia is better and regardless of how much your tank may becoming a cesspool "never do a water change during the cycle". It matters little that you have "cycled" your LR elsewhere because once you place it in a new, uncycled, environment you will have to allow the whole system to cycle.

Do not confuse cycling with curing. The latter is the process of allowing dying matter on LR (or LS, etc) to die and be broken down into it's most elemental components -namely nitrates. Cycling is the process of allowing your tank to achieve levels of the various different bacteria species that break proteinacious matter to ammonia, then to nitrite and finally to nitrate. It is not the process of forcing your tank to process enormous loads of ammonia. These bacterial levels are not static and will fluctuate over time as your tank experiences greater or lesser bio-loads (more fish, a fish death, excess food, etc). Clearly it would make no sense to dump 5 gallons of ammonia in a cycling tank to “really get the tank cycled�. It makes equally little sense to leave such a high ammonia level in your tank that it is either never consumed, or takes months to be eliminated. Even if it did get processed, once that unreasonable bio-load was removed you would have a nutrient depleted bacterial population that would simply decline to the level supportable by whatever remaining nutrient load existed. Understand that the ammonia you see, while bad for fish and corals, is in fact the nutrient for bacteria you want – that’s the only reason you need it. If you don’t have LR or your LR is so nicely cured that it does not produce much nutrient for the bacteria, then you must “start “ the process with an exogenous source of organic matter – dead shrimp, household ammonia, etc. A fish will work, but is inhumane.

In most cases, I agree with the those who say “don’t perform water changes�, but this is applicable only for those that have reasonable ammonia loads that begin to decline in a reasonable period of time – the common case. Bacteria have reproductive times on the order of 20 minutes to 1 hour under good to ideal conditions. At those rates, I assure you that it does not take months for these population to come up to levels meaningful for operational tank. There is no benefit to the long-term success of your tank in proving you can create a waste treatment plant in your living room.

I strongly urge everyone to think about what is occurring during a cycle and understand the rather simple microbiologic principles of food supply and population dynamics. If you have "off the scale" ammonia levels in your cycling tank, your should consider partial water changes to allow the level in the tank to be not much more than at the high level of the scale. You do not, however, want to use water changes to "eliminate" ammonia". You do want the bacteria to develop and they need ammonia (actually they need input organic matter that breaks down, also by bacteria, to ammonia).

I agree the bacteria-in-a-bottle probably has no place in cycling a tank. As long as you put in some healthy LR or LS, you should have all the bacterial diversity needed to handle the organic decay process.

Also consider that your LR has "life" on it - the whole point of buying it in the first place. Placing it in pure ammonia would clearly be foolish and simply kill off everything on the rock. So is it foolish to place it in unreasonable levels of ammonia under the theory that more is better. I am convinced that once enough people understand what we are doing, we will stop placing 100 lbs. of expensive “live� rock in our newly formed pools of ammonia to prove we can eliminate it all. A much more logical approach to cycling a tank would be to kick start a cycle with a sacrificial amount of something, possibly LR, see nitrates form and ammonia drop, then slowly add more LR along with clean up crew, fish etc. LR should not equal dead shrimp.

You only need to start the process and see that you tank begins to eliminate ammonia and produce nitrate to have successfully "cycled" a tank. In the hobby, a complete "cycle" also implies that the enough of the input "starter" nutrient - ammonia - has been eliminated such that the environment is also healthy for livestock. But from a microbiologists perspective, once your can demonstrate that your have bacterial bio-diversity, you are one your way to a successful tank.

[DgenR8]

Hawk,
Not looking for an arguement here, but I guess a definition of "off the charts" is in order.
I do agree that dumping 5 gals of ammonia into a tank is not going to give you a better cycled system in the end.
But, the system in question is only ONE week old.
If you are talking 500,000 PPM of ammonia, (that's 50% ammonia) I don't think that even the hungriest bacteria will benefit from that amount of "food." Nor do I believe that Fred's system is running 500,000 PPM of Ammo.
There must be a line somewhere, that seperates a beneficial amt. of ammo to cycle with from too much.
I could be wrong, but I don't feel that water changes are in order for this particular system at this time.
I didn't keep track of how long my system took to eliminate the ammonia when I cycled, or the amount of ammo I "peaked" at. I only remember the whole process took 10 long, painfull weeks.
Possibly because I didn't do water changes along the way.
I'm open to the possibility that I did something wrong, I readily admit that I'm still learning something new every day.
I'm still not convinced that you are right, but I'm open to discussion on the matter.

[Hawkdl2]

Constructive dialogue does not have to be construed as argumentative and I welcome your comments and debate on the issue. Your point is well taken and was on my mind as I wrote the reply, but failed to offer any useful opinion.
What precisely constitutes "sufficient" vs. "excessive" ammonia is by any means not established. Anecdotally, I have cycled three tanks (albeit two were nano's, but I guess a cycle is a cycle) and all cycled in less than two to three weeks. In each case I used uncured LR (Jeff's Exotic) and saw ammonia levels reach the upper end of a Salifert test scale in 24 hours(I can' remember here at work what that reading was), but it did not go off the chart. If it had, I would have performed water changes to keep it "on the chart". Nitrites peaked at day three and were near zero by the end of the week. Nitrates were detectable within the week. These tanks have been pretty stable and successful and I am confident a cycle needs be no greater in terms of duration or extremes.

I am planing on setting up another tank (a 125-150) in the near future an intend to cycle the tank according to the theory that persistent and excessive ammonia levels are pointless and probably do more harm to life on LR than good, and will "regulate" the ammonia nutrient load using water changes. I belive that a tank would be able to complete a "functional" cycle in two to three weeks and that aquarists should monitor and regulate the process to achieve that result. I will perform water changes as necessary to keep ammonia within the Salifert scale.

I hypothesize that Froil "should" perform a water change sufficient to get ammonia "on the chart". NOT, however simply to bring ammonia to low levels. Unfortunately no one to my knowledge has any justification for picking a precise target level, but there are plenty of posts of people who's cycles completed within a few weeks and as I have followed many of them, appear to have had ammonia levels "on the chart". Therefore, until we have concrete evidence, I propose that "near the top, but not off the chart" levels should be targeted in the first few weeks of a cycle. If your ammonia level goes way off, performed sufficient water change necessary to bring it within the scale. Note: 50% of the bacteria in a tank lost through a water change would likely be replaced (if nutrient loads warranted) within 24 hours. Since 100% of the bacteria in question are not all in the water column, a 50% water change would have a much smaller impact on extant bacteria.

Obviously, according to the theory, water changes should not automatically be performed. Rather, the point is to achieve a certain level of "starter" ammonia. If shouldn't matter how one get s the ammonia (chemical ammonia, animal wastes (fish), decaying LR, dead shrimp, etc.). I would love to see evidence that water changes under such conditions extend cycle time.

So, in this case I do recommend a water change, regardless of how long the tank has been cycling. It is fair to day that the "facts" demonstrate that one does not need off the chart ammonia to achieve a sufficient and functional cycle. therefore, why subject LR/LS/clean up crew/damsels or whatever to ridiculous levels of ammonia?

I think this is an important part of reefkeeping that is unfortunately current based on lore and heresy and is ripe for serious discussion and experimentation. I would like to see a much more well thought out approach to cycling a tank developed.

The other question, which I am confident Froil has probably answered for himself is whether to add a dead shrimp in the face of persistent ammonia levels. Of course not. Adding decaying organic matter to already excessive nutrient levels would be counter productive.

One issue I have not resolved, but have begun researching, is the prevalence of marine nitrate cycle bacterial species in/on non-marine sources. It's not clear to me if: 1. the bacteria involved in marine nitrate cycles are in fact marine-specific species and 2: if non-marine nitrate-cycling bacteria populate aquaria.

[Froil]

ok i have already done two probably 30% water changes, i have a cheap test kit, but so far the test have showed up as the maximum on the card. I know i need to wait and then wait some more, but you would think that after a week you would see some kind of difference. i porbably have a 3 to 1 ratio of "dead" (dry) rock to "live" rock, and the dsb is about 4" deep. is it possible to need more water in the tank to rock? it is a 30 gallon tank and is 3/4 stacked full of rock. Enjoying all the responses

[Froil]

also have 3 power heads in there for circulation and it has quite a current.

[Hawkdl2]

First, it is important that you make decisions based on a reliable test kit. Many people recommend the Salifert kit. For a dollar or so your LFS could test a water sample to confirm your kit's readings.

I presume the "dead rock" that was lying around in a box had at one point been live rock. If so it is likely that you are curing the rock in your new tank. All that dehydrated dead organic matter is now decaying and polluting your tank. If so, I would take the rock out a scrub it clean in a seperate bucket of water then return it to the tank. With any luck you wont have killed all the life on your new LR. Scrub the dead old LR then do a 30-50% water change and monitor the ammonia levels for a few days. As before I would perform water changes as necessary to keep the ammonia levels in a reasonable range ("on the scale"). Allow the levels to stabilize for a few days between changes to insure your reading accurately represent what is happening in the tank.

Keep an eye on your skimmer, it should be producing plenty of skimmate. Do you have a good skimmer?

[Mad Scientist]

Hawk, I agree with a number of the points you have made. I feel that two many people these day drop of few hundred dollars and some great LR to cycle their tanks with and then allow the ammonia to reach "rediculous" level, killing alot of the life on the rock. This is not necessary and will not serve any purpose in that (as you pointed out) once the NH4 drops, the excessive bacteria will starve and die off.

I also think it is very important that we all recoginize that a tremdous ammount of infrrmmtion is yet to be discovered in terms of the specific species of bacteria involved and the different strains within each species that flurish under different conditions and (at any time there are many species and many strains), most of the stuff I have read states that it can take over year before the overall population in a tank stablizes. This a complex system, but the more we learn about it, the better we can care for our captive creatures.

[Hawkdl2]

MS,

Agreed. So what type of biologists are you? My Ph.D. is in microbiology and immunology, but my the focus of the bulk of my work is in virology - specifically gene therapy.

I think the issue of "cycling" is long overdue for some rational evaluation and there has to be a better way than dumping dead seafood or expensive live rock into a tank in order to purposefully pollute the water - the approach just isn't sound microbiology. I think I have some ideas for a much more rational approach that I will test in my next tank. The problem is the desired experimental end point is difficult to define. However, I think it should be fairly easy to develop a procedure that allows the establishment of the desired bacterial repertoire without ever producing detectable ammonia levels.

[dattack]

I agree with all the above!

:D

Hey Hawk, the frags are doing well.

[Hawkdl2]

Hey Dat, glad to hear it! The frag you gave me is also very happy. I haven't ID'd it yet, but it is certainly a montipora or porites, probably a monti, but I would guess not a digitata - at least not like my orange.

[Pepito]

Hey I was just wondering (if you don't mind me asking) where you guys work? I am currently in collage and am thinking about a degree in biology or something like that. I was just wondering mainly if you guys are still happy with your jobs and if you would recomend it. Thanks guys, I'll be out of my cubicule some day!!

[Hawkdl2]

particularly,

I work at the City of Hope National Medical Center and the Beckman Research Institute and previously at several biotech companies. Do I enjoy it? Absolutely, after ~15 years I still look forward to Mondays, even after getting to race a formula car all weekend. It's never been "work" for me, but I am in a particularly exciting and "sexy" field of biology. The research I/we do is cutting edge enough that I get interviewed about weekly by everyone from Forbes (last Oct. issue), LA Times, NY Times, and scores of smaller newspapers and magazines - even a couple of books. I am asked to give speeches all over, I'm asked to sit on company boards and all sorts of other gratifying stuff. I control about 3 million in grant funds, plus institutional support. I get to imagine how the world should be then get to try and make it so.

Most importantly, however, is that my group and others that I work with have had the good fortune to have made significant contributions to the improvement of the human condition - we are making science fiction reality. I get to know that what I am doing will impact how cancer patients and others will be treated in the future - more humanely, more successfully and more rationally.


What's not to like? Stay in school, stay focused. Any one can do it.

[Pepito]

Thank you very much. I work at a job right now that is work hopping that someday i will go to my job but it won't really be "work". So thank you very much, I don't want to make any bad decisions early on you know.

[Froil]

test my water tonight and it is down to .25 mg/l!!! looks like i am approaching the end of my ammonia problem for the time being. time for the nitrite problem!!! Thanks for all the info. this was a good thread!!

[Mad Scientist]

Well Hawk, now I know whom to direct any micro questions to, impressive resume, it's people like you out their on the cutting edge that are making the quality of life better for so many people. I'm actually a field biologist (M.S. in Conservation Biology) stuck in a lab. I work at MIT in cambridge in a devlopmental gentics lab working with zebra fish. We infect them with a tagged retrovirus, breed a few generations, then screen the embryos for mutations (which we track down with southerns) and then clone the genes. Interesting stuff that pays the bills, but, like I said I'm a field guy.

I agree that the "science" of cycling is very pirmitive and there will no doubt be big advances in the years to come.

[DgenR8]

First, let me say that I'm impressed with the direction this thread has taken. I love a constructive discussion!
Sometimes, scratch that, MANY times, things we learn along the way are accepted as fact. If we never question it, we continue to believe it and spread it around. That said......
The more I think about it, the more I can't decide what level we should allow AMMO to spike to when cycling. The way I got it when starting my Reef, was that for cycling purposes, AMMO is good, the more you have, the more bacteria will grow to consume it.
As I read this thread, I consider the fate of all that bacteria once there is NO detectable ammonia. (indicating that the bacteria has done it's job.)
Without ammo to eat, I expect it would die. I also expect that once dead, the bacteria we so wanted will contribute to the ammonia content in our systems. Therefore, high populations of ammo consuming bacteria is only good as long as you have high concentrations of ammo to be consumed, and noone wants high concentrations of ammo after a cycle.
Please, go easy on me, I'm changing my whole scool of though on cycling here.
What I'm now thinking is that to properly cycle a tank, we first need to understand the bio load that system will house, and how much ammo (at least approximately) will be produced by those inhabitants. Too much ammo in the begining will only grow more bacteria than our established systems will provide "food" for, causing starved bacteria to ADD ammo to the system, then more bacteria will colonize, consume and die, causing more ammo on and on it goes, lengthening the cycle time.
This seems to make sense.
I am in no way saying that this is a fact, just what is going through my head as I read Hawk's posts.
BTW, Hawk, that is an impressive resume you have there. I'm glad now that I didn't jump up with my fist in the air and exclaim how wrong I thought you were
:eek2: :)

[Mad Scientist]

Hi Larry, I agree with your interpretation of this disscusion except for one point, it's not so much that they dying bacteria (that starve when the NH4 drops) hurt the system, their death does not result in much NH4, but it's that you live rock or damsels or whatever you are using to cycle the tank suffers.

Well, I might as well throw a number, how about 1ppm (total NH4), I don't see a reason to let the NH4 rise over this point, espically if you want to preserve alot of life on your LR. Is this too high , too low? I have a feeling a lot of people out there are running up their NH4 way past 4ppm.

[Hawkdl2]

Larry,

I think you have summed up the issues very well - cycling and aquaria mythology. You and Mad Scientists have framed the most poignant question -how much input ammonia do we need to "sufficiently" cycle our tanks.

I am formulating a plan to begin an experiment to address this question and have started figuring out how much of a budget I will need (and who I can hit up for support). I propose asking several questions: 1) what is the maximum rate of ammonia consumption for an: empty tank, tank with LS bed, tank with some fixed ratio of LR/volume. (Ammonia will de dosed exogenously as chemical ammonia). 2) after determining a max ammonia consumption rate, how long does it take to achieve ("cycle") to that capacity (or some arbitrary sub maximum rate) when seeding a sterile water/dead sand bed with : water only from a "cycled" tank (read here "Live Water", "LW" for the first time ever - may soon be available MO for only $10/oz!!), LS only, LR only, or some combination. Then, once a tank has "stabilized" at some less than maximum ammonia input level, how long does it take for bacterial levels to adjust to increases in ammonia input in a :water only tank, LS only tank, LR only tank, or LR/LS tank.

I figure it will probably take about a dozen years, but what the heck, it seems like a really useful experiment. I think the real challenge will be proving that the test tank is sterile between experiments and that it is not being seeded with residual bacteria form the previous test.

In addition, I intend to try to "seed" a tank with non-marine sources of denitrifying bacteria.

[Pepito]

Wow, maybe in that 12 years I can get a degree and get paid to help out!!!!!!! Haha, that really would be a great experiment.