Ammonia Problem

[Nimbose]

OK FA, not a problem then. I just get a bit miffed when somebody says I am being irresponsible when I know how much research went into a statement. I would never say false readings if they were not a possibility. I would not suggest them if i did not see a good reason they are likely the cause. One can Google 'False ammonia readings" and find lots of references. This should give most folks enough information to know they likely can and do happen and maybe even why. But one can go further and investigate how the test kits work. I know because I have done this as well. And having read about false readings, I also wanted more in depth info on then.
 
I tend to approach diagnosing cycling issues from the "its a process" point of view. One can not look at almost any single set of readings and conclude anything. We need a series of readings, we need to know parameters, tank contents, ammonia additions etc. To know where a cycle may stand we need to have a movie not a photograph.
 
For example, if I say: My cycle has stalled, what is wrong? How can anyone answer that? So what I, and others should do is ask for more information. I can not begin to form a picture of things in this regard unless I have enough hard facts to do so. I do not feel others can either. That is why you so often see me and others asking posters for a whole lot more information and details. Sometimes the explanation is tucked into a corner and can be easily missed. Sometimes the explanation is that the numbers simply do not make sense. When they don't, say so.
 
Most fish keepers are decent folks and they are usually eager to try and help others with problems. I share that same motivation. And for years I was always willing to offer an answer, a suggestion etc. for that reason. But over time I started to learn that just giving an answer was not a enough if it was not a good answer. I had my butt put in a sling a few times because somebody who actually knew more than I did would make it clear where what I said was not right. It is how we all learn at times.
 
I probably make the longest and most detailed posts of all the members here for a reason. When I answer a question or try to diagnose a problem and offer a solution, I want to show the underlying reasons and science involved. I want readers to be able to make sense of the information and to see why it applies and not just blindly accept a short answer. I want them to be able to learn something they can use down the road because they can understand what is happening and not because I, or anyone else, simply posts: do this. Folks have the choice of reading the in depth explanation or not. At least I feel that I did my part.
 
I am not always right by a long shot. I can misread, misunderstand or outright make mistakes. However, I feel by laying things out in detail, the accuracy of what I say and the reasons for it are out there.  When I get it wrong, the reasons for that are also out there for all to see. Please, do not ever blindly accept what I state if I failed to justify and explain it. And don't it for others either.
 
Here is an example of what I mean. You will see posts that state if there is no ammonia in a tank that the bacteria will die off at the rate of 10% a day, This would imply that it takes less than 2 weeks of no ammonia and there will be no bacteria left. I have looked into this and I know this is flat out not true. So the next time you see this stated as a fact, suck it up and reply. Can you prove it? Ask for some sort of research that shows this to be true. Don't worry, the poster wont be able to find it

Or have even more fun and point them to this http/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2006.00170.x/full Even if one cannot understand some of the scientific terminology, it is very easy to see that the 10% statement is fiction.
 
I could be wrong in my assessment of what is going on in Nimbose's tank. But given the collective information presented, I thing I have come up with a decent understanding and explanation. If I am right the tank should smooth out in terms of the cycle. Ammonia should not move up, nitrite levels should not rise and nitrate may or may not show up. If I am wrong ammonia will rise and nitrite will appear and rise. I think the way too big fish load to start created way too much ammonia too fast. But behind all this, the cycle was still progressing. With the fish deaths the ammonia levels being created were suddenly cut in half which provided breathing room for the cycle to get into balance with the bio-load. I mean if a tank only has half of the needed bacteria and then one reduces the ammonia level being put in by half, that puts the tank pretty close to being cycled. Plus we know there is some bacteria that went in on the old decor and the new plants, which will also eat ammonia and nitrate.
 
All I did was connect all the dots I saw to conclude what I have. Nimbose keep updating the thread so we know things are on the right track or if they are not. The one thing I would suggest is adding a small bag of crushed coral to the filter. This will raise the KH some which should also pull the pH up a bit. Since that low range kit stops at 6, there is no way to know if the pH is even lower. So it is still possible that this is what harmed the fish and not ammonia or nitrite. I would be a lot happier seeing a reading a bit above 6.0 to be sure.

I posted a few minutes before you and it mentions a rise in PH... taking the length and time of your post into consideration, I think you might have missed it. ;u;

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Nimbose, I posted before you did. I am not a fan of additives without more understanding. The product you added is designed for use with ro water. This is water that is essentially devoid of almost anything besides hydrogen and oxygen (H2O). Pure water is not healthy for plants, fish or nitrifying bacteria. It needs to have other things in it. The product you used is to put those things back, While it may contain some things that raised your pH, it also contains things you really do not need and may not even want. You were right not to add the dull dose, that could have created some problems for sure. What you should have looked for was what is called a buffer. Perhaps the following will help:
 
"Buffering Capacity (KH, Alkalinity)
Buffering capacity refers to water's ability to keep the pH stable as acids or bases are added. pH and buffering capacity are intertwined with one another; although one might think that adding equal volumes of an acid and neutral water would result in a pH halfway in between, this rarely happens in practice. If the water has sufficient buffering capacity, the buffering capacity can absorb and neutralize the added acid without significantly changing the pH. Conceptually, a buffer acts somewhat like a large sponge. As more acid is added, the ``sponge'' absorbs the acid without changing the pH much. The ``sponge's'' capacity is limited however; once the buffering capacity is used up, the pH changes more rapidly as acids are added.
 
Buffering has both positive and negative consequences. On the plus side, the nitrogen cycle produces nitric acid (nitrate). Without buffering, your tank's pH would drop over time (a bad thing). With sufficient buffering, the pH stays stable (a good thing). On the negative side, hard tap water often almost always has a large buffering capacity. If the pH of the water is too high for your fish, the buffering capacity makes it difficult to lower the pH to a more appropriate value. Naive attempts to change the pH of water usually fail because buffering effects are ignored.
 
In freshwater aquariums, most of water's buffering capacity is due to carbonates and bicarbonates. Thus, the terms ``carbonate hardness'' (KH), ``alkalinity'' and ``buffering capacity'' are used interchangeably. Although technically not the same things, they are equivalent in practice in the context of fishkeeping. Note: the term ``alkalinity'' should not be confused with the term ``alkaline''. Alkalinity refers to buffering, while alkaline refers to a solution that is a base (i.e., pH > 7).
 
How much buffering does your tank need? Most aquarium buffering capacity test kits actually measure KH. The larger the KH, the more resistant to pH changes your water will be. A tank's KH should be high enough to prevent large pH swings in your tank over time. If your KH is below roughly 4.5 dH, you should pay special attention to your tank's pH (e.g, test weekly, until you get a feel for how stable the pH is). This is ESPECIALLY important if you neglect to do frequent partial water changes. In particular, the nitrogen cycle creates a tendency for an established tank's pH to decrease over time. The exact amount of pH change depends on the quantity and rate of nitrates produced, as well as the KH. If your pH drops more than roughly two tenths of a point over a month, you should consider increasing the KH or performing partial water changes more frequently. KH doesn't affect fish directly, so there is no need to match fish species to a particular KH.
 
Note: it is not a good idea to use distilled water in your tank. By definition, distilled water has essentially no KH. That means that adding even a little bit of acid will change the pH significantly (stressing fish). Because of its instability, distilled (or any essentially pure water) is never used directly. Tap water or other salts must first be added to it in order to increase its GH and KH.
 
General Hardness (GH)
General hardness (GH) refers to the dissolved concentration of magnesium and calcium ions. When fish are said to prefer ``soft'' or ``hard'' water, it is GH (not KH) that is being referred to.
 
Note: GH, KH and pH form the Bermuda's Triangle of water chemistry. Although the three properties are distinct, they all interact with each other to varying degrees, making it difficult to adjust one without impacting the other. That is one reason why beginning aquarists are advised NOT to tamper with these parameters unless absolutely necessary. As an example, ``hard'' water frequently often comes from limestone aquifers. Limestone contains calcium carbonate, which when dissolved in water increases both the GH (from calcium) and KH (from carbonate) components. Increasing the KH component also usually increases pH as well. Conceptually, the KH acts as a ``sponge'' absorbing the acid present in the water, raising the water's pH."
 
From http/fins.actwin.com/aquariafaq.html
 
The stuff you added likely contained something that helped raise the pH. There is another problem with raising the pH rapidly, it makes ammonia more toxic. I can't remember your tank temp., so I will provide and example at 78F (25.5C) with 1 ppm of ammonia at pH 6 and 7
 
At pH 6.0 the amount of the total ammonia that is in the toxic NH3 form is .0006 ppm
At pH 7.0 the amount of the total ammonia that is in the toxic NH3 form is .006 ppm
 
While neither of these levels is a worry for your fish, there is 10 times the NH3 at 7.0 than at 6.0. As an FYI, at a pH of 8.0 the NH3amount jumps to .057 ppm and that is harming fish.
 
I would much rather that you put a bag of crushed coral in your filter. I would prefer you use a real buffer to raise your pH. But before you do, read up a whole bunch because changing one's pH in a stable way is work. It wont stay changed unless you continually monitor and add buffer to hold things stable. Here is one product you may want to investigate http/www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/NeutralRegulator.html also click on the FAQ link there for more info.
 
Now let me explain about acid water and the bacteria. They can adapt to acid pH, even lower than 6, as long as they have some time. If you take perfectly viable bacteria living at 7.5 pH and drop them into a pH of 6, it will likely kill most of them. But if you have bacteria at 7.0 and you drop the pH more slowly, many survive and reproduce more bacteria that can also survive. In your case, depending on the real pH level when it said 6.0, it may have done some stalling or damaging to the cycle. This might explain why the ammonia level has bumped to 1.0. I would expect this also should lead to some nitrite showing up.
 
If my assessment that your tank is handling most of the cycling chores already was incorrect, it is going to be due the the pH being too low. I also owe an apology re this. I went back and reread all my posts in this thread. I would have sworn along the way I posted regarding pH and KH. I did so in my last post before this one by suggesting the addition of crushed coral. I should have suggested this much sooner.
 
What I do know is if the drop in the pH did kill off all the bacteria, or most of it, then the cycle is not near the end as I thought but back near the beginning. And this will become obvious fairly fast as the ammonia will not stay at 1.0, it will climb, and fairly soon. If it does, then I was absolutely wrong in my assessment and more water changes etc. will likely be needed. But those water changes should not be intended to drop the ammonia levels to under .25 ppm. As long as the pH stays at 7.0 (or below), keeping ammonia at 1.0 for a week or two should be safe. The more ammonia one can keep in the tank in this regard, the faster it will cycle. Of course, as always, if the fish show signs of distress, change the water even if the level of ammonia should normally not be dangerous for the short term. In addition, when you test for ammonia, also test for nitrite. Lets make sure whatever is going on, we see it. I will not walk away from this until unless I am asked to or until the cycle gets brought to a successful conclusion. I do not walk away from any thread in which I have given advice until I know what happened if that advice was followed.
 
Btw- I still think the multiple consecutive .5 ppm ammonia readings were not accurate regardless of what stage of cycling the tank is at now. Those sort of readings cannot be real for the reasons stated.
 
Nimbose one last Q. Is there by any chance a water softener at work here regarding your tap water?

 

[Nimbose]

Nimbose, I posted before you did. I am not a fan of additives without more understanding. The product you added is designed for use with ro water. This is water that is essentially devoid of almost anything besides hydrogen and oxygen (H2O). Pure water is not healthy for plants, fish or nitrifying bacteria. It needs to have other things in it. The product you used is to put those things back, While it may contain some things that raised your pH, it also contains things you really do not need and may not even want. You were right not to add the dull dose, that could have created some problems for sure. What you should have looked for was what is called a buffer. Perhaps the following will help:
 
"Buffering Capacity (KH, Alkalinity)
Buffering capacity refers to water's ability to keep the pH stable as acids or bases are added. pH and buffering capacity are intertwined with one another; although one might think that adding equal volumes of an acid and neutral water would result in a pH halfway in between, this rarely happens in practice. If the water has sufficient buffering capacity, the buffering capacity can absorb and neutralize the added acid without significantly changing the pH. Conceptually, a buffer acts somewhat like a large sponge. As more acid is added, the ``sponge'' absorbs the acid without changing the pH much. The ``sponge's'' capacity is limited however; once the buffering capacity is used up, the pH changes more rapidly as acids are added.
 
Buffering has both positive and negative consequences. On the plus side, the nitrogen cycle produces nitric acid (nitrate). Without buffering, your tank's pH would drop over time (a bad thing). With sufficient buffering, the pH stays stable (a good thing). On the negative side, hard tap water often almost always has a large buffering capacity. If the pH of the water is too high for your fish, the buffering capacity makes it difficult to lower the pH to a more appropriate value. Naive attempts to change the pH of water usually fail because buffering effects are ignored.
 
In freshwater aquariums, most of water's buffering capacity is due to carbonates and bicarbonates. Thus, the terms ``carbonate hardness'' (KH), ``alkalinity'' and ``buffering capacity'' are used interchangeably. Although technically not the same things, they are equivalent in practice in the context of fishkeeping. Note: the term ``alkalinity'' should not be confused with the term ``alkaline''. Alkalinity refers to buffering, while alkaline refers to a solution that is a base (i.e., pH > 7).
 
How much buffering does your tank need? Most aquarium buffering capacity test kits actually measure KH. The larger the KH, the more resistant to pH changes your water will be. A tank's KH should be high enough to prevent large pH swings in your tank over time. If your KH is below roughly 4.5 dH, you should pay special attention to your tank's pH (e.g, test weekly, until you get a feel for how stable the pH is). This is ESPECIALLY important if you neglect to do frequent partial water changes. In particular, the nitrogen cycle creates a tendency for an established tank's pH to decrease over time. The exact amount of pH change depends on the quantity and rate of nitrates produced, as well as the KH. If your pH drops more than roughly two tenths of a point over a month, you should consider increasing the KH or performing partial water changes more frequently. KH doesn't affect fish directly, so there is no need to match fish species to a particular KH.
 
Note: it is not a good idea to use distilled water in your tank. By definition, distilled water has essentially no KH. That means that adding even a little bit of acid will change the pH significantly (stressing fish). Because of its instability, distilled (or any essentially pure water) is never used directly. Tap water or other salts must first be added to it in order to increase its GH and KH.
 
General Hardness (GH)
General hardness (GH) refers to the dissolved concentration of magnesium and calcium ions. When fish are said to prefer ``soft'' or ``hard'' water, it is GH (not KH) that is being referred to.
 
Note: GH, KH and pH form the Bermuda's Triangle of water chemistry. Although the three properties are distinct, they all interact with each other to varying degrees, making it difficult to adjust one without impacting the other. That is one reason why beginning aquarists are advised NOT to tamper with these parameters unless absolutely necessary. As an example, ``hard'' water frequently often comes from limestone aquifers. Limestone contains calcium carbonate, which when dissolved in water increases both the GH (from calcium) and KH (from carbonate) components. Increasing the KH component also usually increases pH as well. Conceptually, the KH acts as a ``sponge'' absorbing the acid present in the water, raising the water's pH."
 
From http/fins.actwin.com/aquariafaq.html
 
The stuff you added likely contained something that helped raise the pH. There is another problem with raising the pH rapidly, it makes ammonia more toxic. I can't remember your tank temp., so I will provide and example at 78F (25.5C) with 1 ppm of ammonia at pH 6 and 7
 
At pH 6.0 the amount of the total ammonia that is in the toxic NH3 form is .0006 ppm
At pH 7.0 the amount of the total ammonia that is in the toxic NH3 form is .006 ppm
 
While neither of these levels is a worry for your fish, there is 10 times the NH3 at 7.0 than at 6.0. As an FYI, at a pH of 8.0 the NH3amount jumps to .057 ppm and that is harming fish.
 
I would much rather that you put a bag of crushed coral in your filter. I would prefer you use a real buffer to raise your pH. But before you do, read up a whole bunch because changing one's pH in a stable way is work. It wont stay changed unless you continually monitor and add buffer to hold things stable. Here is one product you may want to investigate http/www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/NeutralRegulator.html also click on the FAQ link there for more info.
 
Now let me explain about acid water and the bacteria. They can adapt to acid pH, even lower than 6, as long as they have some time. If you take perfectly viable bacteria living at 7.5 pH and drop them into a pH of 6, it will likely kill most of them. But if you have bacteria at 7.0 and you drop the pH more slowly, many survive and reproduce more bacteria that can also survive. In your case, depending on the real pH level when it said 6.0, it may have done some stalling or damaging to the cycle. This might explain why the ammonia level has bumped to 1.0. I would expect this also should lead to some nitrite showing up.
 
If my assessment that your tank is handling most of the cycling chores already was incorrect, it is going to be due the the pH being too low. I also owe an apology re this. I went back and reread all my posts in this thread. I would have sworn along the way I posted regarding pH and KH. I did so in my last post before this one by suggesting the addition of crushed coral. I should have suggested this much sooner.
 
What I do know is if the drop in the pH did kill off all the bacteria, or most of it, then the cycle is not near the end as I thought but back near the beginning. And this will become obvious fairly fast as the ammonia will not stay at 1.0, it will climb, and fairly soon. If it does, then I was absolutely wrong in my assessment and more water changes etc. will likely be needed. But those water changes should not be intended to drop the ammonia levels to under .25 ppm. As long as the pH stays at 7.0 (or below), keeping ammonia at 1.0 for a week or two should be safe. The more ammonia one can keep in the tank in this regard, the faster it will cycle. Of course, as always, if the fish show signs of distress, change the water even if the level of ammonia should normally not be dangerous for the short term. In addition, when you test for ammonia, also test for nitrite. Lets make sure whatever is going on, we see it. I will not walk away from this until unless I am asked to or until the cycle gets brought to a successful conclusion. I do not walk away from any thread in which I have given advice until I know what happened if that advice was followed.
 
Btw- I still think the multiple consecutive .5 ppm ammonia readings were not accurate regardless of what stage of cycling the tank is at now. Those sort of readings cannot be real for the reasons stated.
 
Nimbose one last Q. Is there by any chance a water softener at work here regarding your tap water?

Really? Huh, then the forum glitched a little. The time stamp on my post is 6:22 and yours is 6:30... Weird. I did refresh before posting, but nothing showed up.
 
As for the product, it states that it's suitable for conditioning soft tap water and rain water, as well as RO water. I think that, in this case, is why my LFS suggested it to me... My tap water doesn't contain enough minerals. If this was the wrong product, then that's just irritating... It cost £15. Sigh. The cost of pet ownership.
 
I think you're right about the ammonia rising, though. I did another test and it's gone up to 2.0; I'm going to do another water change as usual and hopefully that'll bring it down. I should also mention (which I swore I had), that it doesn't aways stay at 0.50ppm; that's just the lowest I am able to get it before it creeps back up to 1.0ppm. If this is the product's doing, perhaps I'll be able to get a refund as they're endangering my fish even more? I asked how I should dose with the powder and they actually said to do half; I can't help but wonder if my fish would be in shock from the sudden PH test if I had followed their instruction.
 
Either way... Hmn. I'll do another quick test before I change the water pretty soon and see what's going on.
 
And perhaps? I'm not quite sure if it'd be the cause, but it's quite strange. I used the same water for my older tank and never had such a problem with it; this was for over five years and I had only let the tank run with no fish for just a week due to being a beginner (and the pet store told me it's all I'd need to do) before buying some fish to put in it. 
 
I'll have to have a good hunt for some crushed coral; I've never seen it on sale in any of my LFS's before. I did a quick Amazon search and one showed up for £50 and that's well out of my price range... I did find this, though. Would that be the correct product to use? The only problem there is that the description says it keeps the PH at 8.2, which would cause the ammonia to harm my fish.
 
The buffer, though? I've definitely seen that around and I think it's readily available. Hopefully my funds won't run out anytime soon...

 

[Nimbose]

Okay, just did a 25% water change.
 
Before The Change;
Ammonia - 2.0ppm
Nitrate - 0ppm
Nitrite - 0ppm
PH - 6.8
 
After The Change;
Ammonia - 1.0ppm
Nitrite - 0ppm
Nitrate - 0ppm
PH - 6.8
 
Temperature is 78°F both times. Fish show no signs of ammonia poisoning and are alert, energetic, friendly and are eating well.
 
Just thought I'd keep you in the loop!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Nim- I did post before you, but i hit edit about 3 or four times after. I saw the little somebody posted notice while I was editing but did not stop to click and read, I finished what I was editing. The board did not glitch. I pretty much always edit longer posts a fer times. So my post was really made after yours in terms of my havinbg read yours. I posted again when I did. Incidentally, I see the post times in terms of my New York Time zone when i am logged on

 
Dang you got me again. I started this post well over an hour ago, I saw a posted was added while i was wtitijng and correcting etc. and did not look. When I posted yours was there - Dang.
 
There is nothing in your posts to indicate you have soft water. It comes out of the tap at 7, do the test to make it out gas to know the real number.
 
What the store sold you will put a bunch of things into water that has 0 of them or very little. Ro and rainwater both do. Some tap can as well. However, we have no idea what your tap water contains as we have neither a GH nor a KH reading. My point is what if one of the things that would be added back to water in what you bought is something actually already in your water out of the tap.
 
But most of this is now taking a back seat to the real problem, you are in a fishless cycle with too many fish for the tank size. Plus the fish you have are not the ones best suited to cycling a tank. This is what killed them the first ones and I am afraid it may again. So there are two reasonable remedies here, get some or all fish out, or get lots of bacteria in, (or a combination of the two).
 
If you try to keep your current fish alive by doing water changes I fear it may not be possible. Your ammonia levels doubled pretty fast. You may bed doing daily water changes for a really long time and may be doing more than one a day at some points.
 
If you can find some Dr Tim's One and only, it will cure your problems fastest. If you can find some tetra Safe it should help but is not as good for rescue situations as Dr Tims. The next best thing to do is to try and find people who will donate some cycled media or tank gravel. The more the better. If you can not do any of this than reduce you stocking to the 3 large danios. You might be able to add a 4th but this would be it. Then do a fishless cycle holding the ammonia under 2 for sure but let it hang in the 1- 1.5 range as long as the fish don't mind. When you get to nitrite we will deal with that with out water changes as long as ammonia has come close to zeroing out.
 
Zebra danios are a suggested cycling fish because they have decent tolerance to ammonia. It should take several weeks to get the tank cycled for that fish load. When it is you will add a new fish that is not more of a waste produce than about 1/4 of the load you now have. This way the mini-spike this creates will not be a problem nor last very long. You will ramp up ever several weeks after that by adding more fish and the being sure that tank handles them before adding more. This is how fish in cycling was always done and should still be.
 
The need to get out fish is simple, they "exhale" ammonia, they poop waste that turns to ammonia. Even starving them wont turn off the flow. So the only possibility of controlling the amount of ammonia being generated is by controlling the number, size and waste potential of the fish being used. Then one tries to select gidh which are more tolerant of the conditions they are about to undergo.
 
I would prefer to see you get all the fish out and cycle without them rather than go fish in. No fish are at risk this way. You may be able to ask the store to hold them for credit rather than a refund. Make sure they know you want fish back in a few weeks. You maybe be able to find local fish keepers who would babysit them for you. My point is, the ideal number of fish to use in cycling a tank is as close to none as possible.
 
The stuff you showed me the link for is crushed coral, but 10 pounds will last you a lifetime in your tank. Ask the store to sell or give you a couple of cups. they porbably hat it in the sw and rift lake tanks. Otherwise find a sw keepers or rift lake cichlid person and they likely can spare a few cups.
 
You will have to decide what to do from here with the facts at hand.
 
I would suggest that you only add more of the product you bought if the ph in the tank drops under 5 or when you change water. If 2 spoons got you to 7.0 in about what I estimate is 26-27 gals (102-108 L). 1 spoon for 50L change, 1/2 spoon for a 25 L change should work as a basic guideline in new water.

Interesting. Some stuff puzzles me. To drop ammonia by 50% usually requires a 50% change. You did 25%. It cant be bacteria since you got 0 nitrite before and after.
 
Unless you anticipated my last post and added some of the ro product in, I wonder why the pH did not budge. Monitor the pH too jik

 

[Nimbose]

Nim- I did post before you, but i hit edit about 3 or four times after. I saw the little somebody posted notice while I was editing but did not stop to click and read, I finished what I was editing. The board did not glitch. I pretty much always edit longer posts a fer times. So my post was really made after yours in terms of my havinbg read yours. I posted again when I did. Incidentally, I see the post times in terms of my New York Time zone when i am logged on

 
Dang you got me again. I started this post well over an hour ago, I saw a posted was added while i was wtitijng and correcting etc. and did not look. When I posted yours was there - Dang.
 
There is nothing in your posts to indicate you have soft water. It comes out of the tap at 7, do the test to make it out gas to know the real number.
 
What the store sold you will put a bunch of things into water that has 0 of them or very little. Ro and rainwater both do. Some tap can as well. However, we have no idea what your tap water contains as we have neither a GH nor a KH reading. My point is what if one of the things that would be added back to water in what you bought is something actually already in your water out of the tap.
 
But most of this is now taking a back seat to the real problem, you are in a fishless cycle with too many fish for the tank size. Plus the fish you have are not the ones best suited to cycling a tank. This is what killed them the first ones and I am afraid it may again. So there are two reasonable remedies here, get some or all fish out, or get lots of bacteria in, (or a combination of the two).
 
If you try to keep your current fish alive by doing water changes I fear it may not be possible. Your ammonia levels doubled pretty fast. You may bed doing daily water changes for a really long time and may be doing more than one a day at some points.
 
If you can find some Dr Tim's One and only, it will cure your problems fastest. If you can find some tetra Safe it should help but is not as good for rescue situations as Dr Tims. The next best thing to do is to try and find people who will donate some cycled media or tank gravel. The more the better. If you can not do any of this than reduce you stocking to the 3 large danios. You might be able to add a 4th but this would be it. Then do a fishless cycle holding the ammonia under 2 for sure but let it hang in the 1- 1.5 range as long as the fish don't mind. When you get to nitrite we will deal with that with out water changes as long as ammonia has come close to zeroing out.
 
Zebra danios are a suggested cycling fish because they have decent tolerance to ammonia. It should take several weeks to get the tank cycled for that fish load. When it is you will add a new fish that is not more of a waste produce than about 1/4 of the load you now have. This way the mini-spike this creates will not be a problem nor last very long. You will ramp up ever several weeks after that by adding more fish and the being sure that tank handles them before adding more. This is how fish in cycling was always done and should still be.
 
The need to get out fish is simple, they "exhale" ammonia, they poop waste that turns to ammonia. Even starving them wont turn off the flow. So the only possibility of controlling the amount of ammonia being generated is by controlling the number, size and waste potential of the fish being used. Then one tries to select gidh which are more tolerant of the conditions they are about to undergo.
 
I would prefer to see you get all the fish out and cycle without them rather than go fish in. No fish are at risk this way. You may be able to ask the store to hold them for credit rather than a refund. Make sure they know you want fish back in a few weeks. You maybe be able to find local fish keepers who would babysit them for you. My point is, the ideal number of fish to use in cycling a tank is as close to none as possible.
 
The stuff you showed me the link for is crushed coral, but 10 pounds will last you a lifetime in your tank. Ask the store to sell or give you a couple of cups. they porbably hat it in the sw and rift lake tanks. Otherwise find a sw keepers or rift lake cichlid person and they likely can spare a few cups.
 
You will have to decide what to do from here with the facts at hand.
 
I would suggest that you only add more of the product you bought if the ph in the tank drops under 5 or when you change water. If 2 spoons got you to 7.0 in about what I estimate is 26-27 gals (102-108 L). 1 spoon for 50L change, 1/2 spoon for a 25 L change should work as a basic guideline in new water.

Interesting. Some stuff puzzles me. To drop ammonia by 50% usually requires a 50% change. You did 25%. It cant be bacteria since you got 0 nitrite before and after.
 
Unless you anticipated my last post and added some of the ro product in, I wonder why the pH did not budge. Monitor the pH too jik

Thank you so much for your patience, Amin. I really appreciate it...
 
I think the best option for me would be to find somewhere to put the fish until my tank can cycle. I'd hate to see me little ones die and to keep them in this tank seems to be too much of a risk in the long run, like you said... I guess I'm just a little scared they'll accidentally get sold if I ask my LFS to care for them, especially since I'm assuming a cycle can take quite a long time? I'd really hate for that to happen. My fishies have such big personalities!
 
For now I'll keep on top of the ammonia and watch the nitrate and nitrite, as well as the PH to make sure they stay within 'acceptable' numbers. I'll contact Maidenhead tomorrow and talk to them about taking in my fish; hopefully they'll do it... Otherwise I might have to face the facts that I might have to give them up for the sake of their health.
 
How long does the average fishless cycle take, by the way? Would I carry it out until the ammonia, nitrate and nitrites are non-existant?
 
Oh, and nothing was added for the PH; it stayed the same which is indeed very odd... Hmn.

 

[FreshwaterAfishianado]

I think the confusion with the ammonia dropping 50% when only 25% of the water was changed may be due to the nature of the test. The result increments on the API test kit are 0-0.25-0.5-1-2-4-8.

Her first reading could have looked as though it was 2.0 but in reality it could be anything from 1.5-3ppm, if it was >2 and she removed 25% then the result could look closer to the 1ppm result on the color chart but actually be anywhere between .75-1.5.

So her actual number could have dropped from say 1.7 which would appear as 2 on the scale down to about 1.27 which would look like 1.

 

[snazy]

At 0 ppm or .9 ppm of total ammonia as measured on a typical API test kit, no fish died. (O ppm was the control group.)
At 1.4 ppm, 2% of the fish died.
At 13.1 ppm, 15% of the fish died.
At 35.6 ppm 25% of the fish still did not die.
 
So I ask folks exactly why they keep saying that shorter term exposure to total ammonia .25 ppm or .5 ppm for short term periods is deadly? Especially when the pH and temp are not known. And please don't start with the harm side of things because at those .25 and .5 levels and even higher, there is more research to show many fish are able to tolerate higher levels for much longer than 4 days and suffer no lasting damage.
 

 
Well, I don't want to start an argument again with you and you are right in saying( or your "science") that fish don't keel over and die after the minimum of ammonia which the OP already found out themselves as they have some surviving fish after all that.  However, the problem is that ammonia or any toxins, fast Ph swings, etc...are a high stress on the fish's immune system and they normally die from secondary complications like diseases if they were exposed to those conditions.
There can be an ammonia spike in a tank without a nitrite spike and there are a range of reasons for that. One could be because ammonia bacs are more intolerant to certain conditions in the tank compared to nitrite bacs. Second because the majority of ammonia bacs had populated a certain area of the tank like gravel or particular filter and that was removed for one or another reason, leaving just a healthy population of nitrite bacs for example.
But hell, yeah, one could have false readings I just don't see how in the OP's scenario that's the case since the tank history clearly shows it's not fully cycled. Whether the ammonia is toxic or not at the low Ph level is another question but at every water change bringing some more Kh to the water the Ph can shift and expose the fish to toxic ammonia, not to mention the stress of fluctuating Ph itself if it happens too fast.  The reason for ammonia here is because the Ph seems to have dropped and as you know yourself, bacteria gets inhibited at such Ph levels and is not very efficient at all. At such low Ph levels you'll be cycling for a very good while.
The option is to raise the Kh via crushed coral in the filter or similar, starting from a low amount not to create a fast change the fish can't tolerate and also not to raise it beyond the tap water levels.  This will make the Ph stable and higher and help the bacs start multiplying and converting toxic waste fast again. But it's risky as it involves Ph shift and the ammonia becoming toxic before the filter gets back in track.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

FA- Nimbose's ammonia dropped from 2.0 to 1.0, both numbers you said are on the API kit. Re-read post #34 in this thread. See we all make mistakes, including me
 
This is a long post mostly in reply to snazy, but it is informative about ammonia and toxicity to fish which is relevant to what Nimbose is dealing with now.
 

 There can be an ammonia spike in a tank without a nitrite spike and there are a range of reasons for that. One could be because ammonia bacs are more intolerant to certain conditions in the tank compared to nitrite bacs. Second because the majority of ammonia bacs had populated a certain area of the tank like gravel or particular filter and that was removed for one or another reason, leaving just a healthy population of nitrite bacs for example.

 
No there can almost never be an ammonia spike that is not followed by a nitrite spike unless there is human intervention. For example, if the bacteria are exposed to drinking water treatment chloramine levels and they stop nitrifying activity, when the chloramine is gone, the AOB recover faster than the NOB. The point is when would this much chloramine be in a tank with fish? Most of what it takes to inhibit the bacteria selectively would kill fish as far as i have read. "Acetylene (C2H2) (19) and allylthiourea (ATU) (20) are specific inhibitors of NH3 oxidation by AMO in AOB and AOA" (If you want to search re allylthiourea, try looking at thiosinamine.) In tanks the bacs react to similar things. In lab studies when they want to affect one or the other it takes particular chemicals, as indicated above, that are not in tanks.
 
The idea that the ammonia bacs and the nitrite bacs populate different areas of tanks is also not correct. The nitrifying bacteria, along with some of the heterotrophic ones all live in the same bio-film. There are a variety of place in a tank system with patches of bio-film with bacteria inside, But the ammonia ones do not live in one set and the nitrite ones in another.
 

Microenvironments and distribution of nitrifying bacteria in a membrane-bound biofilm
 
The distribution of nitrifying bacteria of the genera Nitrosomonas, Nitrosospira, Nitrobacter and Nitrospira was investigated in a membrane-bound biofilm system with opposed supply of oxygen and ammonium. Gradients of oxygen, pH, nitrite and nitrate were determined by means of microsensors while the nitrifying populations along these gradients were identified and quantified using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in combination with confocal laser scanning microscopy. The oxic part of the biofilm which was subjected to high ammonium and nitrite concentrations was dominated by Nitrosomonas europaea-like ammonia oxidizers and by members of the genus Nitrobacter. Cell numbers of Nitrosospira sp. were 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than those of N. europaea. Nitrospira sp. were virtually absent in this part of the biofilm, whereas they were most abundant at the oxic–anoxic interface

from http/onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1462-2920.2000.00150.x/abstract;jsessionid=2A8A49020BCFA405DB15993E63AAD30A.d01t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
 
Apparently you still do not understand the difference between NH3 and NH4 and at what levels each will do permanent damage to or kill fish. I wonder why it is any time I ask you to provide support for what you say you never do? Surely there must be a few pieces of scientific research you can find?
 
But I am not going to argue this with you again. Unless you can find some support for the notion that fish exposed to .25 or even .5 ppm of total ammonia as measured on the total ion scale used on an API kit at a pH under 8.0 and a temp say of 78 which are healthy fish to begin with, I am done listening to you on this issue. But let me leave first you with this from The University of Florida IFAS Extension.

"Ammonia in Aquatic Systems
Ruth Francis-Floyd, Craig Watson, Denise Petty, and Deborah B. Pouder
 
In water, ammonia occurs in two forms, which together are called total ammonia nitrogen, or TAN. Chemically, these two forms are represented as NH4+ and NH3. NH4+ is called ionized ammonia because it has a positive electrical charge, and NH3 is called un-ionized ammonia (UIA) because it has no charge. This difference is important to know because NH3, un-ionized ammonia, is the form more toxic to fish. Both water temperature and pH affect which form of ammonia is predominant at any given time in an aquatic system.......
 

Interpreting the Ammonia Test
In healthy ponds and tanks, ammonia levels should always be zero. Presence of ammonia is an indication that the system is out of balance. Therefore, any ammonia in a pond or tank should alert the producer to start corrective measures. Un-ionized ammonia (UIA) is about 100 times more toxic to fish than ionized ammonia. This UIA toxicity begins as low as 0.05 mg/L, so the result of the TAN test needs to be further calculated to find the actual concentration of UIA.........
 
Anytime the UIA is higher than 0.05 mg/L, the fish are being damaged. As the concentration rises above 0.05 mg/L, it causes more and more damage. At 2.0 mg/L, the fish will die"
 
It is not me who is saying these things, here are the people who are saying them:
 
Ruth Francis-Floyd, professor, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences (College of Veterinary Medicine) and School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; Craig Watson, director, UF/IFAS Tropical Laboratory, Ruskin, FL 33570; Denise Petty, clinical assistant professor and aquaculture extension veterinarian, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences (College of Veterinary Medicine) and School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; and Deborah B. Pouder, coordinator of research programs and services, Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory, School of Forest Resources & Conservation, Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
 
Can you explain why these people with whatever knowledge and experience it took for them to attain their positions are saying that the harm line for NH3 is .05 ppm and that it is 100 times as toxic as NH4? Or at the very least can you tell us how you know they are wrong?
 
And then I leave you with this and maybe you should contact the publisher of the Merck Veterinary Manual to let them know they too are wrong where they say this:
 

A TAN <1 mg/L is usually not cause for concern unless the pH is > 8.5. However, if the amount of NH3 is increased, an explanation should be sought. The amount of toxic NH3 present can be calculated using the TAN, pH, and water temperature. When NH3 levels exceed 0.05 mg/L, damage to gills becomes apparent; levels of 2.0 mg/L are lethal for many fish.

from http/www.merckmanuals.com/vet/exotic_and_laboratory_animals/fish/environmental_diseases_of_fish.html?qt=tropical%20fish&alt=sh#Nitrogenous%20Compounds

 

[snazy]

Apparently you still do not understand the difference between NH3 and NH4 and at what levels each will do permanent damage to or kill fish.
 

 
Jeez, give me a break. Do you think you are the only one that can read around here? Or have the brains to read a scientific paper. You just pick info that suits your own agenda and misinterpret posts the way it suits you. It's insulting. Just a question, but according to you NH4 is completely harmless just because someone said it's 100 times less toxic? You are presuming the ammonia in the OP's case is in NH4 form based on Ph and temperature, but you forget they are doing water changes to lower the constant ammonia rise which could be shifting everything in the opposite direction all the time. So personally, if I ever presume about someone's water conditions, I  take the worse possible scenario, which in this case is possible ammonia toxicity. The only harm that can be done is being overly cautious.
 
Also, the info you provided isn't enough to prove that there can't be an ammonia spike followed by a nitrite spike. Call me stupid, I don't see all possibilities explored in your "scientific" info. You only mention chloramines. Fair enough ammonia bacs are more resistable to chloramines according to that only. You can't state something as a fact based on limited experimental scenarios and exploring just a few possibilities.
 
And anyway, the only reason I participated in the thread is about ammonia being harmful directly or indirectly to aquatic animals. You posted the info yourself above but here is me quoting it again..
 

Anytime the UIA is higher than 0.05 mg/L, the fish are being damaged. As the concentration rises above 0.05 mg/L, it causes more and more damage. At 2.0 mg/L, the fish will die"
 

 
And that's from your other post.

And please don't start with the harm side of things because at those .25 and .5 levels and even higher, there is more research to show many fish are able to tolerate higher levels for much longer than 4 days and suffer no lasting damage.
 

 
So do they or do they not get damaged and die if levels are over 0.05 mg/l because to me it seems both statements although coming from the same person, don't fit each other completely.  Not to mention that they are based on just particular species of aquatic animal. It's like comparing a turtle to a crystal red shrimp.
 
 
But I am not going to argue this with you again. Unless you can find some support for the notion that fish exposed to .25 or even .5 ppm of total ammonia as measured on the total ion scale used on an API kit at a pH under 8.0 and a temp say of 78 which are healthy fish to begin with, I am done listening to you on this issue. But let me leave first you with this from The University of Florida IFAS Extension.

 

[snazy]

But I am not going to argue this with you again. Unless you can find some support for the notion that fish exposed to .25 or even .5 ppm of total ammonia as measured on the total ion scale used on an API kit at a pH under 8.0 and a temp say of 78 which are healthy fish to begin with, I am done listening to you on this issue. But let me leave first you with this from The University of Florida IFAS Extension.
 

 
Ok, so let's say that your info generally says that at a ph of 7.4 and temp at 78.8(26C), and a total ammonia reading of 3ppm, the actual toxic ammonia(NH3) is 0.0453ppm which is less than what your friends from The University of Florida IFAS Extension suggest as being toxic to fish.  So according to you I should only be worried in one of my tanks if the total ammonia reading from the API test shows 3ppm and above? Is that what you are trying to say?
 
P.S: the chart I used came from here: http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/343029-calculating-the-toxicity-of-ammonia-in-freshwater/

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I am done hijacking threads with discussions that do not belong, so I will only continue this discussion in my thread in the Scientific Forum here Ammonia Toxicity And Fish- What The Research Tells Us
 
One thing, since you say you read so much and imply you read the science, why not start by posting some scientific quotes and cite the source on the toxicity of NH4+.  What ammonia conditions for how long do you believe will cause irreversible harm to fish. Cite anything reasonably scientific to support your answer.
 
I will see you over there.
 
 

 

[snazy]

TTA, I was talking in general about NH3 being toxic and us not being able to test how much of it we have in a tank. We can only test total ammonia and guess about the rest beased on a chart.

 

[Nimbose]

Just thought I'd update you guys on what's happening; I've had a small nitrite spike at around 0.25 so I'm assuming the cycle is finally beginning to get going once again. The PH is at 7.4 while the ammonia is still ranging at 1.00-2.00. I used a bottle of Tetra SafeStart which has been suggested and I've also added six more plants today (they only charged me for three which was quite nice).
 
No major changes other than that, though. At least the PH crash is out of the way. I'll let you know when my tank is finally back to normal.
 
Off topic, but would two Ram Cichlids be okay in a 120 litre tank? I keep seeing them and they're quite beautiful... Fallen in love with them, really. Especially the golden ones;

I did some research and several sources say they're better off in a male-female pair. Is this true? And if so, is it quite easy to sex them? I read that the only certain way to sex them is by the fin near the anal opening, but others have said the females are either more pale in colour or have a pinkish belly.
 
Of course, I won't be getting any fish until my tank has stabilized, but I'm planning for the future! uwu

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Pay attention to the Safe Start directions. They do not like you to change water. But watch the fish as well. 1-2 ppm may be OK for a while, but how long depends on how the fish react. You should see a drop in ammonia soon between the plants and the bacteria. Hopefully the best benefit will be less of a nitrite spike.