dontgetbit;3835635; said:I do regret not doing a fishless cycle, however I went this route and if the tank gets out of hand I have a cycled tank to put the fish in if needed. Its all a learning process. The addition of new fish will be very slow in this tank. The next to be added is a juve JD.
As for the bio load and starting it over with the addition of fish, does the same not hold true for fishless cycling? For example, if you cycle the tank with a large amount of ammonia and cycle with a large bio load capability, yet only add a small amount of fish. Does the bb not die off to a level that your stock can feed?
dontgetbit;3835652; said:Yes, from what I understand the city water is treated with chloramine which contains both chlorine and ammonia. So there are very small traces of ammonia in the water, which Prime appears to remove rather well.
dawnmarie;3835737; said:Thi is a qoute from the link that follows. "A large water change (50-70%) should be done before adding any fish to the tank to lower nitrate levels, which can be a pain to bring down later. When changing the water during a fishless cycle, do NOT use dechlorinators that also sequester ammonia, such as the very popular Amquel. I have heard from at least one individual who did everything right with regard to cycling her tank using this method ... the tank cycled quickly, then she did a water change, then added a reasonable fishload the following day with more than adequate filtration, and observed both an ammonia and a nitrite spike. The only explanation that I could think of after questioning her extensively led back to the Amquel. In a normal, established fish tank, the ammonia is being generated nearly constantly. In a fishless cycle, however, the ammonia is added as a daily dose. In my opinion, it's conceivable (though not really provable unless a lot", http://malawicichlids.com/mw01017.htm. This may be what you're fighting.
dawnmarie;3835829; said:Go to the link and read the quote in context. Your tap water contains chloramine(s).
As you reapply your original question I think it will all become clear. And hey i'f i'm wrong you're not out much.
This message will self destruct in 5 seconds
You're right I didn't explain that very well. If as you say the "Prime" renders ammonia non toxic without removing it then it stands to reason that ammonia will not be available to the nitrogen cycle. Without ammonia no Nitrite can form thereby stalling or extending the cycle itself. I added the link as an example of how this could occur. The Nitrogen cycle doesn't know where the ammonia is coming from but it is a required component to get a tank to cycle. With fishless cycling we add the ammonia. When using live fish to cycle, the fish waste produces the ammonia. The fact that you say your tap water contains ammonia throws a wrench in the works. Hopefully someone with more technical knowledge than myself can give a more accurate /eloquent answer.dontgetbit;3836928;3836928 said:I am still not getting the comparison. The article is dealing with fishless cycles and a different type of dechlorinator. It is a very informative article though.
Are you saying that Prime is killing my ammonia? It does not kill it, but it does render it non-toxic.
dawnmarie;3837272; said:You're right I didn't explain that very well. If as you say the "Prime" renders ammonia non toxic without removing it then it stands to reason that ammonia will not be available to the nitrogen cycle. Without ammonia no Nitrite can form thereby stalling or extending the cycle itself. I added the link as an example of how this could occur. The Nitrogen cycle doesn't know where the ammonia is coming from but it is a required component to get a tank to cycle. With fishless cycling we add the ammonia. When using live fish to cycle, the fish waste produces the ammonia. The fact that you say your tap water contains ammonia throws a wrench in the works. Hopefully someone with more technical knowledge than myself can give a more accurate /eloquent answer.
