Cycling With Or Without Plants - Debating The Merits Of Each

[TwoTankAmin]

 
This does not include the initial week or two where there is no ammonia added but the plants can settle in some.

 Go read Post #2 in this thread.
 
You folks don't pay attention some time because further down that same post says:

 
If you 1st cycle a tank and then plant it you greatly increase the time it takes from start to full stocking. I have followed this method for many years now and used it on numerous tanks with great results. However, it is important to use the lower levels of ammonia recommended in the cycling article here. This helps to minimize or reduce the potential for algae.

I should have typed that sentence better so that the was not there and the than was. The it would have read "it is important to use the lower levels of ammonia than recommended in the cycling article here"
 

 
Then why did you recommend the newbie OP with live plants and CO2 injection continue with their cycle adding 3ppm ammonia as your guide recommends?

 
I never said anything like that at all.

 

farmerhoggers


New Member

• 
• New Member
• 21 posts

• Location:United Kingdom

Posted 07 December 2013 - 03:30 PM
 

Hi, does anyone know if its ok to feed co2 to plants during a fishless cycle?
 

TwoTankAmin


Unregistered User

• 
• Member
• 
• 2,925 posts
• 0 warning points

• Gender:Not Telling
• Location:United States

Posted 07 December 2013 - 06:46 PM
 

Yes, it is fine. The nitrifying bacteria need inorganic carbon to function.

 
I said nothing about cycling, I said nothing about ammonia and the OP asked about co2 going in for the plants if cycling was going on. There is no reason in terms of the cycling it cannot because the bacteria use it anyway, it wont hurt them. 
 
And then the rest of that thread got moved here. I answered a question about co2. My answer was correct. I did not not offer anything at all on cycling. The OP did not ask for advice on how to cycle, did not state what plants were involved, nothing. Since you want the tank cycled before it is planted, there would be no point to adding co2. I assume if somebody is adding co2 they are planting a lot. If so they would should add ammonia supposed to make 3 ppm and test and get 0 ppm fast. If they mistakenly followed my cycling article and understood they were seeding a tank as well, they would have tested sooner after ammonia the first time. It would be pretty much be gone in 2 days in such a tank.
 
Cycling the balance of a partially planted tank is a different methodology. It may take more doses of ammonia but at a lower level. The idea is you start with a diagnostic dose which will give you a good idea in a day or less about how much bacteria you will need to encourage. But just like in the fishless cycling article here, there is also one final test with a larger dose just to be sure the tank is over the top. I can tell you one key in this whole process is nitrite levels or the absence thereof. My experience with setting up tanks from the start with plants and then adding ammonia is they finish very fast and they don't take a lot of ammonia. If they also have some media from a cycled tank they can be ready very fast.
 
I do not want to offend Tom- but I think he is out of touch with the hobby some if he thinks most folks starting out will do anywhere near any of what his posts above discuss. Notably somebody is starting their first or second ever tank and they would like to try some live plants that don't take much work or cost and they tlots of fish because that is their main interest in having a tank. Tom's idea of a planted tank is not for these folks. These folks will rarely show up on Tom's site.

 
Generally, folks do not put a lot of fish into a planted tanks right away.
They wait a month or two.
(No most of the folks I am writing for in most situations want all or most of their fish right away and want the tank up and going with them and the plants in place too.  Waiting a few months to fully stock gradually is similar to fish in cycling time wise.)
With ADA aqua soil, or minierized top soil, loams, worm castings etc............these can leach some NH4, but most routines, myself, Amano, and dozens of others suggest 2-3x water changes (say 50-80%) for the first 1-2 months. 
Once plant growth, CO2 are dialed in, then you add fish. I add shrimp after about 3-4 weeks.
(Let be realistic, most folks not seriously wanting plants wont even come close to spending for ADA or dialing in much of anything, only plant mavens will do this.)
If you have an old filter from a mature tank, or switch the filter materials out, that will help some.
(Hey that is seeding bacteria, any body knows in any sort of tank if bacteria are needed, that is a great way to get them in. I include suggest that in my plant in cycling method but, then it will do even more to shorten the whole process to where you add that full fish load in a few days or even the next day.)
Plant roots and leaves come with bacteria all over them also.
(That was one of my major points. Plants offer a double whammy. they take up ammonia and they come with seed bacteria, and this is always an accelerant for cycling a tank with or without plants. And suddenly the tank is closer to cycled than in a fishless cycle in the beginning. And we know not feeding the bacteria for a week or two will not wipe them out, it may just slow them down until ammonia is again available.)
So unless you have a lot of NH4 from soil or something, or add very few plants to start with, it's not likely that NH4 will be an issue, and if you start the planted tank correctly, you'll NEVER seen any NH4.
(How much is very few, is there a magic numbers? Does which plants matter? Does the size of the plants matter? Tom sorry but I think your terms are a bit vague in terms of what very few plants means. Could you please clarify a bit. And when you say properly do you mean as you stated above? three was very worried about making things to hard for new folks as am I.)

 
Actually three my question does relate to this topic. Land plants tend to have a thick cuticle layer on their leaves to help prevent loss of water. They also have stomata. These are pores which they can open and close to take up co2 and water vapor and let out oxygen. They close to help prevent water loss. In submerged plants there is no need for them to be closed. If the plants have them then there is a some what free exchange of water between the plant and the external water. Since ammonium is in the water, as are many other things, if water goes in so do many other things. And this would be one way plants uptake ammonia. And for this reason how plants take in ammonium matters. If they are taking it in in other ways this is relevant as well. Clearly many plants can uptake ammonium via their roots in the substrate or else Tom and others would not suggest that is the best place to put it.
 
I said I would answer all the questions- but there are several folks asking many and I am one person so it takes time- I do it offline and post it. But you guys are asking me questions I have already answered as above. Most of what daize has asked is due to her not understanding things and that will be a part of my answers. She has mis quoted me a few times in her post as well.
 
But here is the clue you both have missed- if you want to have a tank handle 3 ppm of ammonia and you put in plants that can handle 1/3 of that, then you need bacteria to handle about 2/3. If you want you fully stock in one go. But you could put in fish that only created about 1 ppm of ammonia right away. Remember, the goal is not to have X amount of plants or Y amount of bacteria, it is to have 0 ammonia, 0 nitirate and the nitrate is another deal entirely and doesn't matter here. Now, lets not forget that when the plants which can handle 1/3 of the load went in, they carried in bacteria (and the are almost always low ammonia one and nitrite ones too) and this jump starts the bacterial part of the process. Finishing it goes fast.
 
Since this thread has so degenerated from its original start, I am going to end my post tonight with one comment. I tough Ii had posted this before someplace on the site. When I was asked to write the fishless cycling article I pointed out that this was a complex topic. It included different areas which included seeding a tank with bacteria- from other tanks or commercially acquired. It included live plants. It could even include ways to do it in acid water tanks with a pH as low as 4,o or so. I said in addition there were many issues with testing and with how kits worked, the different measurement scales, So I asked how they wanted me to write it. I was told make it simple, make it basic and make it for a non planted pretty average type tank. My job was to stop all the posts we had here of stalled cycles and cycles taking many months. That was fixed.
 
I was then asked to do one on how to rescue a fish in cycle where i had wanted to do the testing article. I have the rescue article mostly done. I would prefer to do the testing article before the advance cycling article which would include the planted tank cycling part including mention of Tom's ideas. I do not encourage people to spend like crazy. That is up to them. I never bought anything from ADA, I love mulm and I have used Jobes spikes for years- but I know the risks and avoided the problems. However, let me be perfectly clear about one thing. My focus in on fish. To the extent that plants keep my fish safer, provide cover for fry, and make a tank healthier for the fish in general, I use them. I am a fish keeper not a plant keeper.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I can't sleep- did not take med on time so am paying the price. it was a long evenig, bro had broken wrist from fall and the ER etc. So I am back and posting more. I am going to try and clarify how planted fishless usually works.
 
You plant, give them time to establish and then you need to know the state of things so you dose the amount it should take to get the tank to 3 ppm. It is the amount that is important, not the reaching 3 ppm on a test kit. That is because when you add that first dose and give the tank time to circulate it, the existing bacteria that came in on the plants and the plants themselves will start to grab it. What is important is what is left in 24 hours. In essence the first ammonia dose is both a test dose and maybe a first dose.
 
But this tank will definitely take up ammonia at a way faster rate than the tanks for which the fishless article was written. And there will be some nitrite oxidizers there too. As a result  the test readings will all be different. Let me base it on the current fishless cycling article. You have added 3 ppm worth of ammonia and are testing in 2 days because of seeding on the plants being present. But better and more informative would be in 24 hours. That needs to be said in directions but will not ruin things here. Now what is the next step in the fishless article? You wait until: "If at any time you test and ammonia is under .75 ppm and nitrite is clearly over 2 ppm, it is time to add more ammonia. Add the same full amount as you did the first time."
 
So if there is 0 ammonia and 0 nitrite right away, your tank is in great shape. But what are the other possibilities. Most of them will not be such that you meet the conditions for triggering  the second dose. Ammonia will be very low but likely there wont be sufficient nitrite and that means you do not add ammonia. The odds are you will not meet the conditions in the article for adding a second 3 ppm amount. You will not be able to complete the cycle according to the directions and will likely be back for help on the forum.
 
If the tank is very lightly planted then ammonia will hang around longer. That is why the key is nitrite. If one cannot see any nitrite or else its very low nitrite not exceeding 2 ppm on the API kit, the ammonia is mostly going to plants and the hitchhiking bacteria and the ones for nitrite are doing their thing. Basically, one won't meet the conditions for a 2nd big dose. You may or may not meet the conditions for the 1 ppm snack because you may not get there before you figure something else is going on. What will happen is you get such low reading or zeros that you have reached the final 3 ppm test dose staget. If that goes in and one tests in 24 hours, there will be 0/0 most likely. This will happen pretty fast. It can be days or maybe a week, two at most with the lightest practical planting and the least "helpful" varieties as well. Remember, what is happening here is the bacteria only need to fill their niche.
 
Because all the test results of a plant in fishless cycle will be so out of whack with the directions in the article, it really makes a lot more sense for me to write a different set which are more in line with the expected results. And this is why I don't worry about algae. There simply will not be all that much ammonia added and it will not be in the water for very long. if it is a case of a bit longer time, one can turn out the lights for a day or two in that respect when the levels are the highest.
 
The next thing is that if one is willing to stock just a tad slower, one can reduce the ammonia amount from 3 ppm to 2 ppm. The plants combined with the bacteria are pretty good at catching up to small mistakes in this respect. Remember, the goal is to get the tank to handle ammonia and nitrite. However it gets done doesn't matter. Of course the stocking should be done about to about 2/3 of full stocking and the rest done in two additions a week or two apart.
 
But what happens if one plants only lightly, chooses plants that don't take up a lot of nutrients and then drops in a full load of fish? What if the plants can't handle the ammonia even with the bacteria they have brought with them? There is no way to know how much bacteria is on the plants. Before that full load goes in we need to know that the tank can handle it. If it can process 3 ppm of total ammonia to zero in 24 hours and not leave any nitrite, its safe. No guessing, no mistakes just test and go. This makes it very simple.
 
Even if you add up all the ammonia added for the fishless cycling article there would  be the equivalent of 13 ppm by amount (and not Ammonia-n either, but as shown on the total ion scale) put into the tank over about 35 days. With plants in there it will be a lot less. More likely 6 - 8 ppm and it will not be there long. I never asked Tom if his ammonia numbers were on the -nitrogen or total ion scale. If your are out there Tom and see this please chime in on that. I am guessing somebody with your credentials might lean toward the nitrogen scale?
 
And for all the reasons above I would prefer to give better directions for cycling with plants rather than leave folks following a set of directions for fish in cycling which will surely not follow the scenario although it is possible to try and pull it off if you can make the connections between the odd readings and what to do. Because the plants have had a shot to establish some before the ammonia goes in and then the time which may be days or a week or even two before the fish go in, it means more time the plants can use to "get a grip" in the substrate or on the decor. They can recover longer from transplant shock. They may have been grown emersed and suddenly lose leaves that need to be replaced with the submersed variety.
 
Now, lets look at it the way three suggests. We will follow the directions according to the article before adding plants. Then we will add the plants and fish. Then that cute bn starts rooting around and plants keep floating. Other fish added may also disturb the plants. OK, we can avoid this by waiting a bit for the plants to establish and then add fish. A week or two should help but may not be enough. Fortunately, no ammonia is going to be dosed so there wont be any issues with that, just regular plant ferts without ammonium. But now 35 (or more) cycling days have passed and another 10-14 for settling in the plants before the fish are added. So total time is  at least 45-50 days. And after the plants go in, a lot of that bacteria is wasted. It will go unfed and will size down to the amount needed based based on the HN3 available to them. The plants will take over dealing with a lot of the ammonia.
 
But, in the tank I suggested, 10-14 days for plants to settle in some and then between a few days and two weeks for the rest with bacteria being allowed to fill their niche. So call it 14 - 24 days to a full fish load. But expect it to average a few days under 3 weeks. And the only bacteria that will die back over time are because the plants grow some and leave even less total ammonia in the water making the need for bacteria less.
 
Plants will compete with the bacteria in three's tank. There are too many bacteria for the job they ultimatley need to do. Plants will out compete them back to a smaller number and then they will coexist- the bacteria end up being in their proper niche. There they are not competing with the plants or vice versa. In my tank the bacteria find that niche right away and when they fill it fast, the process of making the tank safe is done. The bacteria do not deprive the plants of anything, in fact they will make them some nitrate. My point is that as long as fish (and other processes) are making ammonia and the tank is converting most to ammonium, the plants will take that but for the time the NH3 is in the water, the bacteria will take what they can. It is not all taken up instantly.
 
In an established tank there are enough bacteria alone or else with some combination of the them and plants such that our kits can not test ammonia. It never builds up. That doesn't mean it isn't there in both forms so plants and bacteria can get what they do. But lets suppose a fish is hanging by the filter intake and exhales ammonia. It goes up the intake and through the filter, in the filter are some AOB, how can they not take in the NH3 in as it goes through the media? What about when fish exhale in open water? And we have not discussed the organic decomposition creation of ammonia. Both the plants and the bacteria can only take up what touches them directly. No matter how many plants are in a tank, no matter how fast growing they are, there will always be something for the bacteria,even if its very little. After all if they are in the bio-film on the plants themselves, they can "get a taste" of what is around the plant in order for it to be someplace where the  plant is able to take it up..
 
In competition theory usually the end point is one species gets eliminated. Sometimes it can move elsewhere, sometimes evolution may get involved. But in practice coexistence  happens for any number of reasons. When it does the competitors coexists because they are in different niches. But in the case of plants and nitrifyng bacteria, they behave in very different ways. Plants are big compare to bacteria. A plant starts out as a seed or a cutting and in the presence of nutrients it grows. the bigger it gets the more int needs. So a plant will increase its needs for nutrients over time from growth
 
A bacterium is tiny if you could put all the AOB and NOB in a cycled but unplanted tank in a pile, I doubt you could see it. Unlike a plant individual baterium to not keep getting bigger over time. They can increase their ability to uptake ammonia (I am not sure if the NOB can do so relative to nitrite). But this is not a great increase. The bacteria do not respond to lots of "food" by growing, instead they divide. The bacteria also come in various strains which have different affinities for ammonia. If you put a variety of strains into an environment which ones will dominate is determined by the ammonia levels. The bacteria do not compete, they can't the ones right for the environment are the only ones that can thrive. As long as ammonia levels are in the right range noting can change this. It has nothing to do with competition it has to do with ammonia level selecting the strain.
 
Basically, plants have multiple ways they can get the N they need ammonium and nitrate being the most common in a tank. The bacteria have no choice. AOB must have ammonia, So how the bacteria and plants happen to end up together will have more to do with whether they might "compete" or not. If the bacteria are there first, they are there to process the given ammonia levels and they are of the strain best suited for those levels. These are pretty much always the lower affinity varieties. So you have a system in balance and the bacteria there are the righ amount. Now you add plants which mostly love ammonium. They can grab it faster than the AOB and they will. They will definitely out compete the bacteria in this scenario. But they will never eliminate them, they can't. Once a given point is reached the bacteria become stable in numbers and the two live together fine.
 
Now do it the other way around. Have the plants in place when the ammonia gets added and the bacteria that will result will not compete against the plants, nor will the plants take anything away from the small amount of bacteria there will be. The amount of bacteria that will develop is what can take up the available NH3 in the system. And the plants and bacteria live fine together and wont be competing. Now, if the plant mass gets too big, the plants may compete with each other, but not with the bacteria. As long as there is NH4 for the plants to grab, there will also be some some NH3 for the bacteria. As a result them will always coexist at some level.
 
Now all of this is a bit of an oversimplification. There are other essential resources for both plants and bacteria that are shared. Carbon (usually as co2), oxygen, iron etc.  Established bacteria can cope with seriously adverse conditions by going dormant. But if the conditions that cause this are happening in a tank, I think the fish and inverts will be suffering long before the bacteria are in danger. And then so will the plants.
 
Ugh its 5 am, I am starting to wonder if the above made sense. I need to got to sleep, the meds kicked in a while ago and i should have stopped.

 

[three-fingers]

 

Three-fingers
Then why did you recommend the newbie OP with live plants and CO2 injection continue with their cycle adding 3ppm ammonia as your guide recommends?

 
I never said anything like that at all.
 


farmerhoggers


Hi, does anyone know if its ok to feed co2 to plants during a fishless cycle?

 
TwoTankAmin


Yes, it is fine. The nitrifying bacteria need inorganic carbon to function.


 



The OP was very obviously cycling following your existing fishless cycling guide on this forum, in other words, adding 3ppm ammonia.
So you did recommend the OP inject CO2 to their fishless cycling tank with live plants.  As I stated at the start "supplementing carbon will mean the plants have a higher demand for other nutrients too"
 
This is the same as recommending that they fishless cycle a high-tech planted tank.
 
There is no way around this fact. 
 

And then the rest of that thread got moved here. I answered a question about co2. My answer was correct. I did not not offer anything at all on cycling. The OP did not ask for advice on how to cycle, did not state what plants were involved, nothing. Since you want the tank cycled before it is planted, there would be no point to adding co2. I assume if somebody is adding co2 they are planting a lot. If so they would should add ammonia supposed to make 3 ppm and test and get 0 ppm fast. If they mistakenly followed my cycling article and understood they were seeding a tank as well, they would have tested sooner after ammonia the first time. It would be pretty much be gone in 2 days in such a tank.

 Your answer was to add CO2 to a fishless cycling tank, which incorrect .  "Cycling" (growing an average established count of bacteria) done in two days on a high tech planted tank that is having 3ppm ammonia added? You are totally dismissing the possibility of direct ammonia damage to plants, or indirect from stimulating algae.
 
Your recommendation of turning the lights off to control algae would mean that the plants aren't photosynthesising either, which would obviously massively effect their uptake rate of ammonia as well, so this is not a viable solution if you want it done in two days.
 

Since you want the tank cycled before it is planted, there would be no point to adding co2.

The OP wanted the tank cycled while it was planted, not before.
 

 
Most of what daize has asked is due to her not understanding things and that will be a part of my answers. She has mis quoted me a few times in her post as well.

The only things DiazeUK doesn't understand are the various logical fallacies integral to your argument.  I have re-read multiple times for apparent misquotes and cannot see them, so I look forward to your response that highlighting these.
 

But here is the clue you both have missed- if you want to have a tank handle 3 ppm of ammonia and you put in plants that can handle 1/3 of that, then you need bacteria to handle about 2/3. If you want you fully stock in one go. But you could put in fish that only created about 1 ppm of ammonia right away. Remember, the goal is not to have X amount of plants or Y amount of bacteria, it is to have 0 ammonia, 0 nitirate and the nitrate is another deal entirely and doesn't matter here. Now, lets not forget that when the plants which can handle 1/3 of the load went in, they carried in bacteria (and the are almost always low ammonia one and nitrite ones too) and this jump starts the bacterial part of the process. Finishing it goes fast.

Missed? Missed because it was not part of your original argument or cycling recommendations? 
 

 
Actually three my question does relate to this topic. Land plants tend to have a thick cuticle layer on their leaves to help prevent loss of water. They also have stomata. These are pores which they can open and close to take up co2 and water vapor and let out oxygen. They close to help prevent water loss. In submerged plants there is no need for them to be closed. If the plants have them then there is a some what free exchange of water between the plant and the external water. Since ammonium is in the water, as are many other things, if water goes in so do many other things. And this would be one way plants uptake ammonia. And for this reason how plants take in ammonium matters. If they are taking it in in other ways this is relevant as well. Clearly many plants can uptake ammonium via their roots in the substrate or else Tom and others would not suggest that is the best place to put it.

How the plants are taking in ammonium, via stomata or otherwise, has no bearing on this discussion! All that matters to this discussion is that they are taking in the ammonium.
 
Tom is not suggesting the best place to put the ammonium source is the substrate, can you quote where he suggests this? He plays down the importance of NH4 vs NO3 in water column dosing, and shares his experiences with ADA AS (which leeches NH4 into the water column). Not that it matters much, as this has no bearing on our discussion either.
 

I am starting to wonder if the above made sense.

This is reassuring to read .

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Tom is not suggesting the best place to put the ammonium source is the substrate, can you quote where he suggests this? He plays down the importance of NH4 vs NO3 in water column dosing, and shares his experiences with ADA AS (which leeches NH4 into the water column). Not that it matters much, as this has no bearing on our discussion either.

 
I believe in the post from 'barrreport' which I quoted, he implied, even if not directly state, that ADA's a superior growing medium than a more inert substance... Which means, to me anyway, that when plants have a good nitrogen source available to their roots, they have better growth than just in the water column.  I could be wrong about that, but that would be my take away from the recommendation.
 
For anyone who missed it:

In general, yes.
However less burden is placed on the water column when you use something like Flourite vs plain sand.

Likewise, there is also an increase in the plants growth and health when you use ADA AS vs plain sand.

It's a visible difference.

It really depends on the trade offs, do you want to pay a bit more for the sediment and have an easier time, and/or enrich the sand sediment?

I think this trade off is worthwhile.
Aesthetics also matter to many folks.

Some do not like to use EI, they prefer a leaner version of EI, or test + dose.
However, it's not the method that gives poor results, it's the user.

I've seen every method fail given a poor user.

Likewise, I've seen every method succeed given a good user.
The social variable is huge.

But the methods are fairly robust, given you learn to use them correctly and apply them.

Problem is, some folks are able to use only one and think all the rest are bad/worse because they had troubles with them.

That's not true.


Regards,
Tom Barr

http/www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/3052-Substrates-for-EI-tanks

 

[TwoTankAmin]

No, it is not obvious that the OP was following my directions for the fishless cycle here. But let me ask you this. Since you know what the OP was asking and doing surely you knew whether the co2 he was asking about was pressurized gas or a diy setup. Perhaps it was the carbon block method. If it was DIY clearly you can tell us how many bottles of what size he was using? If it was pressurized you also know what level of co2 he would be adding. You are assuming that anybody who read that one line can tell all about that tank and situation. My read is he wanted to know if co2 addition can hurt a cycle to the extent bacteria are needed and my answer was no and I stand by it. he asked nothing more and gave us no more information, In fact, I have no idea if this tank was even set up and neither did three. This could have been a theoretical question for all we know.
 
I have learned over the years that more often than not it doesn't usually pay to answer unasked questions. My directions do not contain any information about cycling with plants. Nor do they say it is necessary to have plants to handle the cycling chores in a tank. They do not tell one much about seeding a tank either beyond stating that it will speed things up and testing should happen more frequently. It is about the most simple cycling method one can do and be reasonably assured of having a tank ready for fish. It is why another article is needed to cover a number of other cycling situations. So where the OP got the idea of how to cycle with plants did not come from me. Nor did I get a PM asking about this. I find your insinuation to the contrary to be presumptuous. Its fine for you to read into things anything you wish to, it is not alright for you to tell people what was in my mind, you have no clue.
 
The process is different and simpler and of course way faster when there are plants. And the amount of time the plants are being exposed to ammonia additions is nowhere near the time there is ammonia in a plantless tank being cycled. Somehow the people this all is supposed to help are being lost in this discussion. We are not dealing with experienced plant folks, we are not dealing with people experienced in plants to where co2 should be added to a planted tank yet as far as I am concerned. If the first planted tank one tries to set up and make work well is the most sophisticated kind, they will fail almost every time. Think back to your own experiences and tell me you had no learning curve with plants that you were an expert right away, or at least able to handle it all.
 
But the basic idea her is to insure before the fish go in, that it is safe in terms of ammonia and nitrite. Given all the variables involved and the experience level of the fish keepers not being great at this stage, I believe it is important to prevent problems rather than trying to fix them after they occur. The design of the basic article is such that it almost impossible to do it wrong if one follows the directions. And what I suggest when plants of some number are thrown into the mix is that similar precautions and methods are also a good idea.
 
And then there are the issues with doing this all by remote control. A poster tells us things and we have no clue if the information is accurate or complete. its like people posting for help with sick fish and trying to do remote diagnosis. So the advice needs to be such that its better safe than sorry in nature. It is possible to cycle a tank at higher than 3 ppm levels of ammonia, but its a much more slippery sloe and more things can blow up. So the idea in the article is to prevent that.
 
The way we can easily know if a tank is cycled with bacteria alone or in concert with some smaller number of plants which may not be able to handle as much of the burden as one hopes. So lets be sure. And the way to be sure is to put in the ammonia and test. The same way we do with all bacteria. So unless one has reason to believe the plant load is so light
as to be a problem, that can be the same 3 ppm as in the unplanted instructions. If one is in doubt, it could be reduced to 2 ppm.
 
But it is what happens after the 3 ppm goes in that matters. What we want to know is how fast the ammonia drops and how far. The result will show if a tank is "cycled" or how close it is if not. It is the amount of leftover ammonia and what the nitrite levels may or may not be that answers this. If the level of plants and whatever bacteria may be there is adequate, there will be 0 ammonia in 24 hours which means the tank is done. No more bacteria are needed to complete things. So one ammonia addition is all that goes in. I really doubt any plants are going to die from this. Now if one were trying to follow the old directions for fishless cycling with 5 ppm of ammonia, this would be a bit more risky in that respect.
 
But what do you think most lighter levels of planting might show in terms of ammonia remaining after 24 hours? My experience is the level is going to be pretty low. Based on the results one then has a baseline to indicate the best way to proceed to get that handled. Lets remember here we have some bacteria there already and the more that might be (even though not yet enough in some cases) all that needs to happen is to boost the bacteria part of the equation to cover the leftover. And in this respect things are similar to the non-planted situation.
 
Look at it like this 1 ppm of ammonia is not the same thing at all times in terms of the bacteria and having a tank handle ammonia. Why do I say that. Lets say one puts 3 ppm into a tank and in 24 hours there is still 3 ppm because there are almost no bacteria. The amount of time it will take to see that ammonia level drop from 3 to 2 is a number of days. The bacteria need to multiply and starting from close to zero it takes time. Now lets let some time passes again until the ammonia level drops from 2 ppm to 1 ppm. It does this 1 ppm faster because there are more bacteria present and when they reproduce to increase the ammonia oxidizing capacity they do not have to double as many times. And when one gets down to 1 ppm from 2 ppm, the bacteria will handle that last 1 ppm faster still.
 
So lets back up. We have no idea for sure in many tanks if they are ready for a full fish load or not based on what went into the tank. We can guess, and if one is more experienced and more dedicated to live plants, may even have a very good idea. But the relatively new person to planted tanks will not. So dose and test to see.
 
three I am confused by something you said earlier and now say the opposite. At one point in our exchanges you stated that plants take up ammonia at night. Initially, I thought this was not the case and I said so. It turned out I was wrong and I said so as well. Now there is no photosynthesis at night, yet plants take in the ammonia. So if if one finds themselves needing to do a blackout for a day or two, why does this cause ammonia uptake to cease completely when the lights go out? The first time the lights go out how does the plant know its a blackout and not normal night? The only need there might be to blackout the tank is if the planting is so light and so is the bacteria seeding and the ammonia stays relatively high. In that case you can just leave the lights out for another day if you are worried about algae. The bacteria will still multiply if they need to,the plants can still take up some ammonia. But in very few instance do I expect there to be so much ammonia for so long it will be there long enough to encourage algae. There is a huge difference between adding 3 ppm to a tank with plants once to check if its ready and if its not doing so again in a couple of days and regularly adding ammonium to a tank as a way to feed plants.
 
I see very little difference between the inclusion of live plants to shoulder part to most of the ammonia burden etc. or doing major seeding of bacteria in a non planted tank. Both will greatly shorten the time it takes to get the tank ready for a full fish load. And in both cases i will tell folks to use the same method to know if the tank is ready- dose the amount of ammonia it should take to get to 3 ppm and test in 24.
 
As for competition, plants can uptake ammonia faster than bacteria. But because they can not get it all because of the NH3 and NH4 factors, there will always be some amount of bacteria. So if a tank has only bacteria and you add plants, then what you get is direct competition, but not to its logical conclusion. It is not possible for the plant to eliminate the bacteria entirely. The most that happens is the plants define the niche the bacteria can occupy and they do occupy it, But if you start with plants, the amount of ammonia available is less and the bacteria will not compete with the plants for it, the bacteria can't compete. But what they will do is scavenge whatever NH3 is available and reproduce to whatever level it take to use that level. Nothing the bacteria can do will harm the plants, the bacteria can not deprive them of a resource that will knock back the plant population nor can the plants eliminate the bacteria below this level. Both organisms are in their proper niche in the tank and there they stay until something else happens to change this.
 
But there is another side to all this. If you look at the fishless cycling articles back in time you will see two things, they were advising dosing at higher levels and more often than we do today. But they were also recommending that one seed as much bacteria as possible and that live plants are the second best way to do this. This meant there were a bunch of folks doing this. Now if most of the folks who we doing so started to have nasty algae blooms, the odds are pretty good it would have been mentioned. And the more it happened the louder the outcry should have been. And then as time passed the fishless articles were revised to the extent the ammonia dosing level was now down to about 2 ppm. But nowhere in those updated recommendations did it say anything about doing so because it would help prevent all the algae issues. Nor did it remove live plants from the seeding list because they created more problems than the help they provided.
 
While I have a great respect for Tom Barr and what he has contributed to the hobby. All his comments on ammonia dosing seem to be relative to regular daily dosing. I have no doubt he is dead on in this respect. What I am not so certain about is what a few 3 ppm ammonia doses days apart and which get used up fast by whatever combination of plants and bacteria it takes in a tank might do in terms of algae. Lets not forget that at the first sign something is going wrong in terms of ammonia and  nitrite in most tanks the advice is to do water changes. But what might cause a tank with both some live plants and some functioning nitrifying bacteria to clear 0 ammonia in a day or two?
 
So I will reiterate. if one plants and has bacteria in as well and then adds ammonia- the immediate result compared to a tank with no plants will not be the same. The ammonia can drop substantially over night. This means the only other issue is nitrite. Until one sees what is up with that one can't know where they stand. If it shows up there are neither enough plants nor enough bacteria. But even if it shows up, it is going to be at very reduced levels. Tom Barr is correct that many planted tanks should not have cycling type issues especially the really well planted ones. My focus is on the rest of them here. My focus is on making tank setup smooth and easy to accomplish. And my method will most certainly let the fish keeper have a way to know their tank is fish safe or else to know how to proceed to get it there.
 
One last comment here. This discussion has not touched on pH considerations almost at all. We know if one sets up two fairly similar planted tanks which mostly differ in terms of the pH, the tank with the higher pH will have a greater portion of whatever ammonia may bre present for whatever time to consults of more NH3. Now three you have stated a few times that plants take up NH3 and I keep saying they take up ammonium (NH4). I quoted on this, when Tom discusses what the plant get he uses the term ammonium. So if you are saying plants take up NH3 can you please provide any good science to support this?
 
Just as an example In a 78F tank which reads 3 ppm of total ammonia at 7.0 pH has .0181 ppm as ammonia (NH3). Raise the pH to 8.0 and that NH3 level goes to .1712 ppm. Raise the pH to 9.0 and it rises to 1.1312.  If plants could do equally well in all 3 of those pH levels there will be a different number of bacteria because of the changing availability of NH3. Now no tank will constantly have 3 ppm of ammonia in it, but this ratio of NH4 and NH3 remains the same whether its 1 ppm or 5 ppm or any ppm in between. And the more ammonia in a tank that is HN3, the more food there is for bacteria and the more bacteria that will develop. So the way to make the pH mostly meaningless in this respect is to dose and test. All we need to see is 0 total ammonia. This means again the new fish keeper doesn't have to worry about all this, just that there is 0 ammonia after 24 hours or less and no nitrite as well.
 
I am sorry this subject degenerated into areas that are really not really a concern but more of an esoteric set of issues that most fish keepers want to know about nor do they need to grasp them. What they need are simple ways to do things that will make it harder for them to make mistakes and encounter issues that leave them lost. I prefer to steer folks down a the path of least resistance and less study and work to get to the final destination in the tank. I assume that lack of experience always increases the odds for problems and mistakes so I will always try to come up with methods to prevent these.
 
I have spent way to much time and effort on this topic. Instead of a way to cycle tanks it became more of a discussion of competition and ecosystems. None of which matter much to most fish keepers. So I will maintain my thoughts on it all and you can maintain yours.
 
Eventually I will get around to writing the article on cycling that covers all the ground omitted in the basic article.  I will submit it for consideration and either it gets used or it gets rejected. This is the same for all the articles submitted here. And the first step in more advanced "cycling" whether its with plants, seed material from established tank or a bottled bacteria product or a combination of these I will say they should all start the same way, add the amount of ammonia that should produce 3 ppm and then start to test. One can test in less than 24 if they want, they can test several times over the first 24 too, but the first test after the ammonia addition should not be more than 24. And whatever the result is will show the way to proceed from there. And until that information is known, there are many instances possible where the tank is not ready for a full fish load. Ecosystems do not matter, how there may be an allocation of ammonia between plants and bacteria doesn't matter, all that matters is a tank is indeed fish safe and getting it there did not create other problems.
 
Folks can accept it when I say the process with plants and some seeding will go fast, not much ammonia will get added and there will rarely be any issues here. If once in a while there is a rare need to turn off the lights for a day or two, it will not hurt things. The plants will be OK, they will take up ammonium still at the outset and the lights will be back on fast. And you don't need to turn them out, you can always do a bit of a water change. But lights out for some additional short time is easier than water changing. But I do not believe in almost all cases blackout will be needed nor will water changes. And if one is only going to add so few plants they will not make much of a dent in the ammonia processing, then they can be done in the way three suggests. There is not a huge difference between very few plants and no plants at all except the bacteria a few plants can contribute will be minimal.
 
Just as an fyi, this is the holiday season, I am recovering from surgery and am slow, my brother just broke a wrist and for a while I need to help him too. I will not walk away from my promise to address all of the questions daize posted. However, it may take a week or two. Please be patient.

 

[plantbrain]

Hi Tom, many thanks for taking the time to make those informative posts!

 

 They prefer it when it's at a specific concentration, not all concentrations.  
 

 
Ah, silly me, the graph seems to suggest that they only uptake NH4 faster than NO3 when NH4 is above 0.5ppm.  NH4 uptake is still happening below 0.5ppm, just at the reduced rate I posted above.
 
Cheers for the correction! 
 

I messed with it a lot maybe 15-10 years ago, never found much difference between them with a wide range of plants.
A few seemed to do a little better, most did not. Add added new ADA As which has NH4 to the tank above, some plants seem to grow a bit better, UG, EH, but everything else does not seem to care. 

This is very interesting as I'm currently experimenting (or really, "messing around"

) with adding NH4 as one of the nitrogen sources in my tank. It's not something I felt I needed to try as I get great growth with KNO3, but since I had hydroponic nutrients lying around that contained ammonium molybdate, Id thought I'd see if any species responded positively to it, as some folks seem to rave about using NH4 on their tanks and I've had amazing results form ADA AS before.
 
Not noticed any difference, plants are still all growing at roughly the same rate as far as I can see, but I'm only adding around 0.2ppm daily along with the NO3 in there too, so since NH4 is below 0.5ppm, it seems I'd be just as well using plain KNO3 - for my current species of plants anyway. I've learnt something very useful form this discussion!

 
Thanks again!


 
 
Yes, nothing wrong with trying this stuff out and doping your ferts with NH4 if you are experienced, or only add a tiny amount.
I have fish and simply feed them well, there's plenty of NH4 to be had.
 
Some folks seem to be anti fish or something, or have only a few tetras and not much else.
So those folks will need more N, and they can certainly add more NH4, but it's a bit touchy and dosing errors can occur, it's pretty toxic, but not NO3.
So plants will grow pretty good either way, so the risk is much less with NO3.
 
You do not gain much for the risk, while some are good at dosing and careful, many are not, those are the ones I'm thinking about.
My error tends to go to the common loony who doses without a care. Or they simply do not realize it might be bad, so more must be better right?
 
Folks do this weekly with CO2 and kill their fish.
I know because I see it weekly.
Have for 15 years. 

 

Tom is not suggesting the best place to put the ammonium source is the substrate, can you quote where he suggests this? He plays down the importance of NH4 vs NO3 in water column dosing, and shares his experiences with ADA AS (which leeches NH4 into the water column). Not that it matters much, as this has no bearing on our discussion either.

 
I believe in the post from 'barrreport' which I quoted, he implied, even if not directly state, that ADA's a superior growing medium than a more inert substance... Which means, to me anyway, that when plants have a good nitrogen source available to their roots, they have better growth than just in the water column.  I could be wrong about that, but that would be my take away from the recommendation.
 
For anyone who missed it:
 
 
In general, yes.
However less burden is placed on the water column when you use something like Flourite vs plain sand.

Likewise, there is also an increase in the plants growth and health when you use ADA AS vs plain sand.

It's a visible difference.

It really depends on the trade offs, do you want to pay a bit more for the sediment and have an easier time, and/or enrich the sand sediment?

I think this trade off is worthwhile.
Aesthetics also matter to many folks.

Some do not like to use EI, they prefer a leaner version of EI, or test + dose.
However, it's not the method that gives poor results, it's the user.

I've seen every method fail given a poor user.

Likewise, I've seen every method succeed given a good user.
The social variable is huge.

But the methods are fairly robust, given you learn to use them correctly and apply them.

Problem is, some folks are able to use only one and think all the rest are bad/worse because they had troubles with them.

That's not true.


Regards,
Tom Barr

http/www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/3052-Substrates-for-EI-tanks
 


 
Yes, I implied it was the more ideal location, but folks can dose the water column effectively also.
Since the sediment is a nice long term source, etc, seems to make sense. NO3 will not bind to soil well, it's way too mobile and will not attach, so it's all water column.
But you can add things to both locations, then you have a robust method that covers all your bases really. 
 
I just question that there's THAT much difference here to warrant the discussion. Folks often believe freely what they WANT to believe. 
Caesar said 2000 years ago, still applies today.
 
So I try and see with a fair open mind if I can prove that to myself before being too sure of things.
If I cannot say, well.......I cannot say.
 
I could not tell much difference. CO2? Light? Current? Water changes? Yea.........

 

[plantbrain]

 

I do not want to offend Tom- but I think he is out of touch with the hobby some if he thinks most folks starting out will do anywhere near any of what his posts above discuss. Notably somebody is starting their first or second ever tank and they would like to try some live plants that don't take much work or cost and they tlots of fish because that is their main interest in having a tank. Tom's idea of a planted tank is not for these folks. These folks will rarely show up on Tom's site.
 

 
Sure, I cannot save 100% of the fools, but that's not my job or intent. It's a hyperbole to even suggest that I might. Or seek the newbie which has 1 plant and 50 fish in a tiny tank. 
I do try and help those that want to work through things and have plants.  You have to START with their goals and each person will be individual and specific, there's no blanket statement or set of methods or rules that apply to all.
 
Water changes are awesome. I think if there's one rule, that would be it.
 
This does not make me out of touch with the hobby. If you suggest I'm out of touch, you need to support that view. You have not. 
This is NOT trying to argue the topic.
 
Folks, stick to the topic.
 

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Oh yes- forgot this part. Tomm barr does advocate the use of ammonium in tanks administered via the substrate. if i am wrong let hiom come back and state this categorically. When I read his posts elsewhere is the opposite just as eagle did.
 

 
Some can stay stuck in the mud, and debate the points, scream liud that one is preferred over the other, either or dicotomies..........without looking at the more larger relevant issue for aquarist.
We have many species with many differing preferences, so to meet all the needed, add to sediment and the water column.
Since NH4 can bind well to clays and is toxic at high levels in the water, we add that to clays sediments.
Since NO3 does not bind well, and is non toxic relatively, we add that to the water column.

Regards,
Tom Barr

from http/www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/6768-Do-aquatic-plants-prefer-ammonium
 
or how about
 

 
I suggest BOTH locations for ferts, the soil will run out of NH4 after a few months, maybe 1-2 years, but by then, the tank is grown in and many will break it down and redo the tank.

Most still add something, fish food, traces etc, not any added work to tose some other ferts in as well.

Still, plants will take from both locations, so this makes each method more robust and more wiggle room if one runs out or you forget and do not re enrich etc.

All your bases are covered.
__________________
Regards,
Tom Barr

 
There are more similar quotes I have read. As far as I can understand Tom states if one wants to add ammonium, it is best done in the substrate rather than the water. he also advocates using both water and substrate fertilization for the best results. So once again I would ask Tom to settle this. My understanding is in an undisturbed substrate (a tank where one isn't replanting or replacing plants much or not at all, ammonium works best for the tank as a whole if it is in the substrate and not the water.
 
I am happy to be corrected by Tom since i could be misunderstanding what he is writing.
 
While I was writing this Tom came and settled it. I guess eagle and i read it OK and three did not?

 

[plantbrain]

I will need time to respond. many questions asked and i am working on it all.
 
Tom- happy to see you here. Let me say I am advocating that completing a tank set up that needs bacteria on top of plants should be done with the plants in place. The amount of ammonia added is not great nor are the levels to be maintained and the total time it is actually in the water can be measured in days. Most of the time the ammonia levels will be barely detectible. And when they aren't one can turn out the light to stave off potential for algae. I think we are talking about between 3 and 6 days of any ammonia loading in total and a cycling period that should complete in 2 weeks or less for a lightly planted tanks and a few days for well planted but not high light heavily planted. This does not include the initial week or two where there is no ammonia added but the plants can settle in some.
 
I do not advocate nor have I ever that anybody add ammonia/ammonium to a tank with fish or other aquatic critera. That it another issue entirely.
 
This method is not meant to be applied to heavily planted or high tech tanks. These you can simply stock up in stages and be fine. I know this. It is all the other varieties of planted tanks which come into play here. Especially the ones less experience fish keepers are likely to have.
 
But if you are lurking out there, I wonder if you could bring some clarity to a subject regarding the plants in our tanks which I have been researching and that relates to stomata. I have been reading research papers etc. trying to determine if submerged plants generally have them or not. I read some say no others yes. Some say some plants do and others don't. Some say many of them have them permanently open. I am not sure if that means they do or don't. For the average planted tank, the kinds most fish keepers likely have, would the plants mostly have them in some form or not? I know they may be found on roots and stems as well as leaves. I know some plants may not have them also. 
 
I have seen it flat out said true aquatic plants do not have them and then read elsewhere that they are typical of hydrophytes in general. I am really confused here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

 
 
I question if fishless cycling has ANY utility for folks without plants.
I think water changes and the basics of good long term care should be applied.
You can seed new tanks with mulm etc, from other tanks, or the LFS etc.
Water sprite is real good for this, floats, easy to care for etc.
I've never done FC, I just do not see any need.
 
a water change is a better tool than testing and watch and dosing NH3.
Water changes are an easy obvious thing folks sign up for in this hobby. 
Testing and cycling is part of the hobby for many also, but many will never do it and avoid it.
Same can be said, but to a lesser extent for Water changes.
Nothing will save those that avoid both except plants.
 
Aquatic plants have stomata in most cases a few do not, but, they are non functional, eg, they do not open and close like land plants.
You can use a scope and see if they open and close.
Look and see
 
Emergent growth will obviously use and have them.
Hydrilla lacks them and few others in that same family.

 

[three-fingers]

I believe in the post from 'barrreport' which I quoted, he implied, even if not directly state, that ADA's a superior growing medium than a more inert substance... Which means, to me anyway, that when plants have a good nitrogen source available to their roots, they have better growth than just in the water column.  I could be wrong about that, but that would be my take away from the recommendation.


 

For anyone who missed it:

In general, yes.
However less burden is placed on the water column when you use something like Flourite vs plain sand.

Likewise, there is also an increase in the plants growth and health when you use ADA AS vs plain sand.

It's a visible difference.

It really depends on the trade offs, do you want to pay a bit more for the sediment and have an easier time, and/or enrich the sand sediment?

I think this trade off is worthwhile.
Aesthetics also matter to many folks.

Some do not like to use EI, they prefer a leaner version of EI, or test + dose.
However, it's not the method that gives poor results, it's the user.

I've seen every method fail given a poor user.

Likewise, I've seen every method succeed given a good user.
The social variable is huge.

But the methods are fairly robust, given you learn to use them correctly and apply them.

Problem is, some folks are able to use only one and think all the rest are bad/worse because they had troubles with them.

That's not true.


Regards,
Tom Barr

http/www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/3052-Substrates-for-EI-tanks

I will restate: "Tom is not suggesting the best place to put the ammonium source is the substrate".
 
Your correct in that he implies that specifically ADA AS give an improvement of plant growth compared to Flourite. Like I said, ADA AS is almost unique among aquatic plant substrates in that it leeches a measurable concentration of  the macro fertiliser NH4 into into the water column. Flourite doesn't contain any NH4 to leech into the water column.
 
When it comes to Flourite compared to plain sand, he just says "less burden is placed on the water column", not that he notices any improved growth along with proper EI dosing (as was the context of that thread). 
 
As long as they actually do get it, plants don't care where they get nitrogen from, substrate, or water column. Tom advocates the use of plant substrates to provide a backup to EI nutrients, just to make life easier, due to possible variables and user error.
 
He does not advocate the substrate as the best place to provide your nitrogen.
 

Oh yes- forgot this part. Tomm barr does advocate the use of ammonium in tanks administered via the substrate. if i am wrong let hiom come back and state this categorically. When I read his posts elsewhere is the opposite just as eagle did.

He advocates the use of ADA AS, but this has no bearing on the original discussion.
 

 
While I was writing this Tom came and settled it. I guess eagle and i read it OK and three did not?

I'm sorry, I "did not" read what?

 

[three-fingers]

 
Some folks seem to be anti fish or something, or have only a few tetras and not much else.
So those folks will need more N, and they can certainly add more NH4, but it's a bit touchy and dosing errors can occur, it's pretty toxic, but not NO3.
So plants will grow pretty good either way, so the risk is much less with NO3.

Haha, yes, I often used to think this about most planted tanks I saw: "lovely tank, but why don't they want more fish, especially with all those plants that can take the bioload! ".  Used to think it was somewhat a waste of an an aquarium .
 
In fact, I'm guilty of it now! One of my tanks has "just a few tetras". This is mainly down to wanting to keep my shrimp and fry population up, however, rather than not wanting more fish!

 

[three-fingers]

No, it is not obvious that the OP was following my directions for the fishless cycle here. But let me ask you this.

Well, it kind of is, as the very top of the cycling section says  "Cycling Your New Fresh Water Tank: Read This First!" and links directly to your method.
  

Since you know what the OP was asking and doing surely you knew whether the co2 he was asking about was pressurized gas or a diy setup.

Does it matter? No.
 

Just as an fyi, this is the holiday season, I am recovering from surgery and am slow, my brother just broke a wrist and for a while I need to help him too. I will not walk away from my promise to address all of the questions daize posted. However, it may take a week or two. Please be patient.

I am genuinely very sorry to hear this, I hope you and your brother are OK. You will have to forgive me or others if we lose interest in this thread or forget in that period of time, however, this is the holiday season

.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Tom- there are many many people in this hobby. A lot of them keep just a few plants. Their setups are simple and usually run pretty well and they will never progress beyond that stage. But when you look at the total population of fish keepers, not a lot of them are really into plants. they just want a few.
 
This site is one where new fish keepers come for help. Many of them have no clue that your site even exists. Most of them find place for advice using Google. I just put in the term "adding live plants to an aquarium" I went through the first 5 pages of of what came back and your site is not there. Most folks new to plants and tanks in general do not land on planted tank site first, they land at places like here. Until these folks progress to where live plants become much more important to them they will never even see all you good information. But all those folks who go on to become much more interested in plants etc. will most certainly end up finding you and other such sites in the end.
 
But it should be clear if one adds up all the tanks in the world, most of them will not be seriously planted tanks or involve people who even want to get to that point. It is hard enough to teach people to change water weekly let aloe to add stuff for plants regularly. most fish keeps want a mice tank they can enjoy and which take minimal effort. it is hard enough to teach such people the basics about pH, hard and soft water, not keeping goldfish with tropicals etc. us hard enough.
 
As evidence I would offer the following. While i do not know how long your site has been up, vs other general sites, i think you have been there a while and have attracted the exact sort of fish keepers who want to become more plant involved. But lets look at the numbers:
 
Aquarium Plants - Barr Report Statistics

Threads11,845  Posts116,537  Members 39,689  
 
Fishforums.net

94,753 Total Members   3,596,780 Total Posts
 
Aquaria Central Statistics
Threads 263,143  Posts 2,815,052  Members113,607
 


And then lets not forget how many fish keepers are also out there that do not use the net much at all. I am not trying to say you site is not a good one nor that your contributions to the portion of the hobby that is very interested in plants has not been invaluable. What i saying is that most of the folks that come to general fish sites are not plant nuts. And the reason is simple, sites like this never have the quality of plant information that sites like yours dedicated to plants will. But take this a step further. Compare how many of the posts here or on AC are in the planted tank parts of the forums vs how many posts are on your forum where they are mostly plant related.
 
This is no different for plant or more sophisticate fish keeping. Lots of folks keep a few corys or maybe a pleco, but how many of them are realy dedicated to these fish? Look at the Planetcatfish stats:
 
Total posts 259866 • Total topics 34576 • Total members 11019
 
This tells me me that in general more fishkeepers are interested in plants and learning a lot more about then than they are about doing the same for catfish.
 
My stance in all this is I am not here to try and help the more experienced fish folks, I am here to help the ones who are least informed and experienced. What I would ask you is if a person has never had a tank and is setting up their very first tank and the want a few plants. What do you tell them to do? Do you tell them to set up a complex tank, to add co2 to start off at the hardest end of the plant keeping spectrum or to you try to have them start off with something easy to handle and then move up the learning curve over time. I wonder what your very first tank and very first planted tank held and what you did in it for the plants. I think this was long ago you may have almost forgotten those days. You are devoted to plants and this is your bailiwick. I wonder if you have any or many unplanted tanks? Do you have any sw tanks? Does what you do even leave you time for such?
 
And then lets not forget on last factor. Most fish keepers are in school or have jobs or have family to care for of some combination of these. many folks can barely afford to have tanks at all and stretch to do so. These folks need things to work that not costly. People on your site must be able to afford the things you suggest in terms of both money and time or all your good advice is worthless. If one can't spend for Excel or pressurized, has not got time to maintain diy co2, and doesn't want to learn more than it takes to keep a nice basic tank with a few of plants, what you have to offer is of no real value to them. This does not make your advice any less good nor any less useful.
 
I do not advise folks who really know what they are doing with plants. The ones who will benefit the most from your input are not my real concern on this site. I worry about the rest in the areas where I can help. I honestly believe that rewriting the basic cycling article here has gone a long way to reducing cycling issues for most newbies here. I think the best way for somebody to know if their tank is fish load safe because of a combination of plants and bacteria is to add the ammonia and the see what happens. I do not want them to throw in ammonia willy nilly as in most cases it simply wont be needed. I don't want them to fertilize their plant with ammonium either. But the new person needs to be certain if they are adding fish that the fish are 100% going into a safe environment relative to ammonia and nitrite. They need to be sure. Adding that initial 3 ppm of ammonia will give them that answer. And if the answer is no, then they need to get the bacterial colony bigger so the tank is for certain safe. This may take a bit more ammonia, but not enough to bite them. And for this reason having the plants in right away will help. I want them to reach their goal with the greatest ease, the least need to master things and the best chance to succeed.
 
About the only thing I tell folks is that there is no reason not to have some nutrients in the substrate and for some plants as this may actually be helpful. As far as I can tell this is also something you tend to advocate.
 
As to my question regarding stomata, my curiosity about this would also include knowing that if a number of the plants we might use in a tank do have them, stuck open or otherwise, are such plants able to take up ammonium (or any other things they need) faster or more efficiently than the plants which do not have them? I guess I am  basically asking do certain plants work better at removing ammonium due to how they take it in and do stomata play a role. Or do the plants without stomata take in ammonium at the same rate meaning plant selection in this respect is not important. For the person wanting very few plants, which types will likely take in the most ammonium the fastest for them?

 

[daizeUK]

Folks can accept it when I say the process with plants and some seeding will go fast

I recently did exactly as you seem to be suggesting:
Add plants and wait a week or two (mostly moss, java fern and monosolenium tenerum making up the majority of biomass)
Add mature media to the filter
Add 3ppm ammonia and follow the steps in your fishless cycling guide

This took 3 weeks to complete the cycle and I lost the monosolenium tenerum in the process. Possibly my choice of planting design didn't help to speed up the cycle as much as you might expect so I think we need to be careful in assuming that we can reliably predict what will happen for everybody. I would also have much preferred to not risk losing the plant.

Just as an fyi, this is the holiday season, I am recovering from surgery and am slow, my brother just broke a wrist and for a while I need to help him too. I will not walk away from my promise to address all of the questions daize posted. However, it may take a week or two. Please be patient.

Take your time my friend and take a break from this if you need it. Real life is always more important! I'm happy to wait and look forward to your explanations if and when you can make time for it. In the meantime just take care of yourself

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Just a fast fly through to comment on the above post.
 
Normal fishless cycling without plants is straight forward and basically the same method works in all tanks of all sizes. 3 ppm guarantees you can fully stock and provides a margin of error. Doing it with plants is more complex which is why I said a different article is needed. There is way more variability in doing cycling with plants. The dosing amounts may need to be altered in order to account for different levels of plants and especially in terms of the specific plants. It can require more judgement calls from the fish keeper. If one knows their stocking plan this can also affect the dosing regimen.
 
Ammonia additions may be 1, 2 or 3 ppm based on various factors. Had daize asked me I would have suggested that she lower the ammonia dosage amount in that tank to be safe. If you are not certain the plants you have chosen can handle the larger dosing amount then reduce it. 3 ppm will insure a full fish load can safely go in. 2 ppm can as well in most situations. But then some attention must be paid soon after the fish are added. Bear in mind that plants grow and bacteria multiply. So even if one sees a small spike in ammonia and nitrite, the numbers should be pretty low and should drop to zero fast. There is that huge difference with cycling bacteria between how long they take to reproduce to process the first 1 ppm of 3 and to reproduce to handle that last ppm of 3. So if one sees .25 or even .5 ppm of ammonia after adding fish, it likely is gone inside another 24 hours or less and the same with a low nitrite reading.
 
One of the keys to doing a cycle where there are plants which are likely by themselves not to handle all the ammonia is to dose and test the first time to get an idea of what is going on. As noted, the ammonia readings in the first 24 hours are very important and the if ammonia is dropping, one must test for nitrite as well. Its absence is not real informative but its presence is. The 4 day cycle above had 1 ppm of nitrite initially before everything 0'd out. That told the person that some amount of the cycling chores were being handled by the bacteria and that shows that the plant load alone could not handle the 2 ppm of ammonia in a day or less.
 
Have a good Holiday all.
 
 
 
 
 
What I can say here is I was chatting with another member here last night, He cycled a largish tank with plants in place but he also was able to add some seeded media from another tank. The member chose a 2 ppm dosing regimen. From first ammonia addition to fully cycled was 4 days. and there was no algae.
 
As a general rule if you are going beyond the types of plants used by most newer folks to plants, you see ferns, anubias, stems, crypts, swords- all the more basic plants most of us start out with. Most of these are pretty hardy and 3 ppm will not harm them.
 
The plant daize lost is not even a true submerged plant and has some interesting aspects. if you are curious there is a great write up on it on the Tropica site here http/www.tropica.com/en/plants/plant-articles/monosolenium-tenerum.aspx
 
If one wants to use more sophisticated plants, they need to know something about unusual sensitivity to ammonia and to adjust the regimen accordingly. Most newer folks are not going to end up using the more unusual or demanding species.