Fish In Cycle

[TheJ0kerrr]

Wow... some will probably accuse you that this belongs to the scientific section, but man, I wish i had seen this chart before!!

I always prefered to know how things work and why, than just what to do. Thanks for that info TTA.

 

[HM Dragon Devil]

The API test kit measures Total Ammonia. Ammonia in a tank exists in two forms unionized (NH[sub]3[/sub]) which is extremely toxic to aquatic life and as ammonium (NH[sub]4[/sub][sup]+[/sup]) which is not harmful. Combined they equal Total Ammonia as read by the API test kit. How much of the total ammonia is in each form is dependent on the pH and tenperature of the tank (pH is much more imoportant). As these two parameters rise, the amount of the bad ammonia rises.

What this means is that for any given level of Total Ammonia, whether or not it may be harmful can not be determined without considering one's specific tank pH and temperature. This has been a known scientific fact for a very long time. It is very easy to put ones hands on the tables that exist for determining how much of any given total ammonia level may be the toxic form.

If you check the tables for a the readings given in the initial post by HM of the numbers (a bit confusing) say the pH is either 7.6 or 8.0 (the confusing part) and the Total Ammonia level is .25 ppm and there is no temperature info given. What the chart indicates is there is not enough toxic form ammonia at any temp up to 86F/29.4C for any pH level of 8.0 or below for .25ppm Total Ammonia.

One can find the toxicity charts for Total Ammonia levels between .25ppm up to 8ppm (a level one should never want in a tank) here Ammonia Toxicity

NH[sub]3[/sub] is considered harmful at 0.03ppm or above in these charts. Here is what the Merck Veterinary Manual says:

Test kits used for aquaculture do not measure NH[sub]3[/sub] directly but instead measure the combination of NH[sub]3[/sub] and NH[sub]4[/sub], referred to as total ammonia nitrogen (TAN). A TAN of 1 mg/L is usually not cause for concern unless the pH is >8.5. However, if the amount of NH[sub]3[/sub] is increased, an explanation should be sought. The amount of toxic NH[sub]3[/sub] present can be calculated using the TAN, pH, and water temperature. When NH[sub]3[/sub] levels exceed 0.05 mg/L, damage to gills becomes apparent; levels of 2.0 mg/L are lethal for many fish.

The charts I have linked are more conservative than the Merck Manual.

So HM, you really needed to do nothing based on your initial post.

Wow indeed! What an excellent post, thank you.

The temperature of the aquarium is 25.5c (my preference), and with regards to my initial post readings, the API reference card range for pH is 6.0 - 7.6, and the HR pH is 7.4 - 8.8.

After seeing the pH result was the highest possible on the reference card, i decided to check the high range pH, and i'm a liitle confused too, but then i'm still a novice.

Looking at the Ammonia Toxicity table in the provided link, the Ammonia was fairly low and i now feel such a fool for panicking, but better safe than sorry.

Dean.

 

[HM Dragon Devil]

Hey guys. Here's todays test results.

Temp 25.5c
pH 7.6+
Ammonia 0
Nitrite 0
Nitrate 30-40 ppm

As you can see pH looks a darker shade than the reference card, hence the 7.6+ result, and the Nitrate has risen considerably.
There's been no sign of Nitrites throughout so far which is a little puzzling considering the elevated Nitrate.

I have ordered some Marimo Moss Balls that should help take up some of the Nitrates, but in the meantime should I perform a water change to reduce them?

Cheers,
Dean.

 

[Tonyb111111]

The API test kit measures Total Ammonia. Ammonia in a tank exists in two forms unionized (NH[sub]3[/sub]) which is extremely toxic to aquatic life and as ammonium (NH[sub]4[/sub][sup]+[/sup]) which is not harmful. Combined they equal Total Ammonia as read by the API test kit. How much of the total ammonia is in each form is dependent on the pH and tenperature of the tank (pH is much more imoportant). As these two parameters rise, the amount of the bad ammonia rises.

What this means is that for any given level of Total Ammonia, whether or not it may be harmful can not be determined without considering one's specific tank pH and temperature. This has been a known scientific fact for a very long time. It is very easy to put ones hands on the tables that exist for determining how much of any given total ammonia level may be the toxic form.

If you check the tables for a the readings given in the initial post by HM of the numbers (a bit confusing) say the pH is either 7.6 or 8.0 (the confusing part) and the Total Ammonia level is .25 ppm and there is no temperature info given. What the chart indicates is there is not enough toxic form ammonia at any temp up to 86F/29.4C for any pH level of 8.0 or below for .25ppm Total Ammonia.

One can find the toxicity charts for Total Ammonia levels between .25ppm up to 8ppm (a level one should never want in a tank) here Ammonia Toxicity

NH[sub]3[/sub] is considered harmful at 0.03ppm or above in these charts. Here is what the Merck Veterinary Manual says:

Test kits used for aquaculture do not measure NH[sub]3[/sub] directly but instead measure the combination of NH[sub]3[/sub] and NH[sub]4[/sub], referred to as total ammonia nitrogen (TAN). A TAN of 1 mg/L is usually not cause for concern unless the pH is >8.5. However, if the amount of NH[sub]3[/sub] is increased, an explanation should be sought. The amount of toxic NH[sub]3[/sub] present can be calculated using the TAN, pH, and water temperature. When NH[sub]3[/sub] levels exceed 0.05 mg/L, damage to gills becomes apparent; levels of 2.0 mg/L are lethal for many fish.

The charts I have linked are more conservative than the Merck Manual.

So HM, you really needed to do nothing based on your initial post.

Cracking post TTA, really useful information.

 

[OldMan47]

Using the handy reference that TTA provided, it looks like you will have toxic levels of ammonia in your high pH tank around .020 to 0.35 ppm. Since the closest you can measure is 0.25 or 0.50, that means you still need to do what we always advise. Keep your ammonia at less than .025 ppm by doing water changes. Be aware that a similar but different relationship exists for nitrites. The difference is that nitrites are more toxic at a low pH while ammonia is more toxic at a high pH. We never expect to have people reading those toxicity charts and understanding what they mean, so we always just recommend that both chemicals be kept at under 0.25 ppm to be on the safe side of things. That does not mean that you can never go outside those numbers if you have enough information to evaluate doing so..
If you are using the API kit, why not just run a high range pH test? That is how I know my tap water runs 7.8 rather than simply 7.6+.

 

[HM Dragon Devil]

Using the handy reference that TTA provided, it looks like you will have toxic levels of ammonia in your high pH tank around .020 to 0.35 ppm. Since the closest you can measure is 0.25 or 0.50, that means you still need to do what we always advise. Keep your ammonia at less than .025 ppm by doing water changes. Be aware that a similar but different relationship exists for nitrites. The difference is that nitrites are more toxic at a low pH while ammonia is more toxic at a high pH. We never expect to have people reading those toxicity charts and understanding what they mean, so we always just recommend that both chemicals be kept at under 0.25 ppm to be on the safe side of things. That does not mean that you can never go outside those numbers if you have enough information to evaluate doing so..
If you are using the API kit, why not just run a high range pH test? That is how I know my tap water runs 7.8 rather than simply 7.6+.

Hi OldMan47.

Thanks for your input. If you check my initial post you will see I have done an high range test, and have been performing water changes when necessary, which has been petty much every day.

I think my tests today are looking pretty good other than the higher Nitrate reading.

Dean.

 

[OldMan47]

Don't worry too much about nitrates until you get values more than 20 ppm above your tap water value. At that point poisons we do not measure in our water would be starting to become concentrated and it is time to remove them with a water change. Nitrogen is not the only poison in our water, in fact phosphates can be just as deadly, it is merely the one we measure easily and that we understand fairly well. We use nitrate readings to guide us on the build of those other poisons.

 

[Tonyb111111]

Don't worry too much about nitrates until you get values more than 20 ppm above your tap water value. At that point poisons we do not measure in our water would be starting to become concentrated and it is time to remove them with a water change. Nitrogen is not the only poison in our water, in fact phosphates can be just as deadly, it is merely the one we measure easily and that we understand fairly well. We use nitrate readings to guide us on the build of those other poisons.

Apologies for going off topic here, but if nitrates reduce in my tank due to plant uptake, what other indicators can be used to determine the levels of the other toxins?

 

[OldMan47]

Plants also remove things like phosphorus, that we do not measure. The nitrogen content is a pretty good indication all around for poisons. In my tanks that I run as NPTs using Diana Walstad's advice on planting, I just change water every 6 months or so to replenish trace minerals for the plants. The plants do a fine job of removing fish poisons. This is one of my NPT tanks.

 

[Tonyb111111]

Plants also remove things like phosphorus, that we do not measure. The nitrogen content is a pretty good indication all around for poisons. In my tanks that I run as NPTs using Diana Walstad's advice on planting, I just change water every 6 months or so to replenish trace minerals for the plants. The plants do a fine job of removing fish poisons. This is one of my NPT tanks.

Thanks for clarifying that, I think I may have to read up on the Walstad method

 

[OldMan47]

Walstad published her book, Ecology of the Planted Aquarium, several years ago now and it enjoyed a short period of popularity. I bought it because I knew I would never be able to bring myself to follow a high tech plant regime. It set me back a bit, but far less than a simple pressurized CO2 system would have cost me. Since then I have more or less adopted her approach to plants and it has worked out well for me.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Oh- the reason you did not see nitrites to speak of is simple. It was the Safe Start combined with your doing a fish in cycle so not being able to overdose ammonia. The Safe Start contains both ammonia and nitrite oxidizing bacteria. This gives one a head start on the nitrite colony which normally lags well behind the ammonia eaters.

For folks who do not have seed bacteria from a cycled tank and who don't use bottled bacteria, the nitrite eaters take much longer to start up and to reach full strength. But because they keep dumping in ammonia to unnecessary levels day after day, the ammonia eaters keep chugging away cranking out nitrite which builds up to high and the cycle stalls etc. etc.

But your nitrite eaters had a head start and further were not required to deal with overly high nitrite levels since your fish could not generate 1 ppm of ammonia/day let alone 4 or 5 ppm. So your cycle was close to instant due to the Safe Start. Which of course a few folks will claim can't and doesn't work. But you know better, because your ammonia levels stayed very low, and you hit hit 0/0/30-40ppm levels fairly fast. And you missed the nitrite levels if they showed up.

Based on your report of .25/0/15 on the 5th day (apr 28), then .25 ammonia the next day (Apr. 29) and then May 2 you report 0/0/30-40ppm it seems the bottled bacteria is working exactly as expected.

 

[HM Dragon Devil]

Oh- the reason you did not see nitrites to speak of is simple. It was the Safe Start combined with your doing a fish in cycle so not being able to overdose ammonia. The Safe Start contains both ammonia and nitrite oxidizing bacteria. This gives one a head start on the nitrite colony which normally lags well behind the ammonia eaters.

For folks who do not have seed bacteria from a cycled tank and who don't use bottled bacteria, the nitrite eaters take much longer to start up and to reach full strength. But because they keep dumping in ammonia to unnecessary levels day after day, the ammonia eaters keep chugging away cranking out nitrite which builds up to high and the cycle stalls etc. etc.

But your nitrite eaters had a head start and further were not required to deal with overly high nitrite levels since your fish could not generate 1 ppm of ammonia/day let alone 4 or 5 ppm. So your cycle was close to instant due to the Safe Start. Which of course a few folks will claim can't and doesn't work. But you know better, because your ammonia levels stayed very low, and you hit hit 0/0/30-40ppm levels fairly fast. And you missed the nitrite levels if they showed up.

Based on your report of .25/0/15 on the 5th day (apr 28), then .25 ammonia the next day (Apr. 29) and then May 2 you report 0/0/30-40ppm it seems the bottled bacteria is working exactly as expected.

Hi, TTA.

I was still questioning if the TSS was actually working, but having just read your explanation it makes sence now, thanks for clearing that up.

Here's todays test results:

Temp 25.5c
High Range PH 8.0 - 8.2 maybe?
Ammonia 0
Nitrite 0
Nitrate 0.40 ppm

I performed a 10L partial water change lastnight, but tests this evening show the same amount of Nitrate. I guess it wasn't enough?


Dean.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Once you have the cycle established, there will be a steady production of nitrate. Only well planted tanks may have little or no nitrates.

 

[OldMan47]

Do you have any scientific evidence at all that the Safe Start contains the right bacteria or any live bacteria TTA? I have only empirical evidence, based on the very high number of failed cycles we experience right here on TFF using such things, that it is worthless. Please provide a link to a real reference of evidence, not the manufacturer's statements, if you know of such a thing.