Dr Joe;1008599; said:
ewurm is correct, your thinking is in line but flawed. Bacteria do grow at relatively the same rate, but the quantity (size of colony) is dictated by the food source, by doing W/C's you reduce the food (mostly ammonia) source therefore limiting the quantity (size of colony) of bacteria grown. Hence if you cycle a filter @ 0.3 ppm and then add a bio-load that produces 3.0 ppm you create an overload and an algae bloom. It will eventually regulate itself, but not untill you cure the algae problem.
And agreed, get your own test kit, LFS are ok for a second opinion.
Dr Joe
.
If you cycled it to .3ppm, yes, you would get a bloom if you added a 3ppm bioload. But I didn't. I cycled the tank to a 3ppm bioload. When I first started, I would add 4-5ppm ammonia to the tank, fishless cycle, and after dropping to 0ppm, would keep adding 2-3ppm each time it hit 0ppm until it reached 0ppm within 24 hours. That was my original way of doing the PWC's.
But the last few times, I started with .5ppm ammonia, and waited til it dropped to 0ppm, and added .5ppm more. When it reached 0ppm in 24 hours, I upped it to 1ppm. I did this up until I was adding 3ppm, and it was dropping to 0ppm in 24 hours or less. It took nearly the same amount of time as my original way of fishless cycling. So, I don't think it's quite flawed at all. Yes, for a larger bioload, you need to cycle to that larger bioload. But like you said, yes, they do grow at the same rate, and colonize at the same rate as long as there's food (ammonia and nitrite) available. So whether you do PWC's or not, they are growing at the same rate, no matter if there's .5ppm available or 5ppm. And I never once had more than .5ppm more than what the bioload could handle in 24 hours (imitating PWC's).
So basically what I'm saying is if the current fish load is putting out 3ppm, and you do water changes to keep levels to .5ppm, the cycling won't take any longer to cycle to the 3ppm level by doing PWC's. And that's how I did my last 3 tanks, I tried my best to imitate a fish cycle with doing PWC's (to prove to myself whether it works or not), but really doing a fishless cycle, by giving the bacteria no more than .5ppm above what the current bioload is handling (I do not like doing fish cycling). So in reality, the tank will cycle at the same rate, while keeping your fish safe (.5ppm or less) in a fish cycle.
Edit:
Previous way of doing fishless cycle took 6-7 weeks without seeding the tank or filter.
New way of fishless cycle took 6-7 weeks without seeding the tank.
All tanks done were 10G tanks, new, never been used.
I also agree with you on the use of Prime, 2x-5x. But my preference for myself is keeping levels down to .5ppm or less if I had to do a fish cycle, or had any kind of mini-cycle for any reason.
I'm hoping you understand what I'm saying. It's just something that I've been trying over the last 9 months, and have found it to be no difference in cycle time.
