How Annoying Is Nitrite?

[JMcQueen]

Im currently cycling my second tank and really starting to loose patience with my nitrite. The tank completed the 12 hours 5ppm ammonia test about 3 weeks ago and my nitrite is still peaking! I dont even have to give the test kit the 2 minutes as its as deep a purple as possible after about 5 seconds.

I guess Im just frustrated that, for some reason, my first tank never really had much of a nitrite spile during cycling. It just had a raised level for a couple of days and dropped to zero.

I've already tried 100% water changes to encourage it to hurry up so I guess I have no other option other than to stick with it.

 

[Twinklecaz]

Lol how funny this is similar to me. Been doing mine 3/4 weeks (my second one too). Ammonia is processing down nicely in 12+ hours but my Nitrite has suddenly decided to spike (before this it looked like I wasn't gonna havew a spike coz it was going from 1.00 to 0.00 in 2 days)so now I'm thinking GAH!

and I seeded with some mature media

 

[Katch]

get your temp up to 30c - pH to 8.4 using bicarb and get good surface agitation to oxygenate the water. This should help somewhat.

 

[JMcQueen]

get your temp up to 30c - pH to 8.4 using bicarb and get good surface agitation to oxygenate the water. This should help somewhat.

Yep, all thats been done since the start of the cycle. Just have to grin and bare it.

 

[Timmy_Bee]

have you looks for members willing to donate mature media? if there is someone near-by, it might be worth a look...

 

[waterdrop]

If you think about it, sometimes a really healthy set of A-Bacs that take off and start dropping ammonia to zero on a daily basis may actually make the nitrite spike stage worse. You are adding more ammonia and they are producing triple the nitrite for all this ammonia. It becomes a really large mountain of nitrite for the fledgling N-Bacs to dig out from under. To make matters worse, nitrite itself (the very thing the N-Bacs need to process) can inhibit their growth, though I don't think as much as high nitrate does.

At times it makes me question the 5ppm first stage dosing and the 3ppm second stage dosing (OM47 and I already have speculated that even 1 or 2ppm during the second stage might keep things rolling enough.) There's a case to be made that possibly starting with very small doses and coaxing things along as low as possible but then doing a final ppm ramp-up in the 3rd stage might actually work better. Its just hard to experiment on beginners because you kind of hate to possibly give them a worse experience because of an experimental idea.

~~waterdrop~~ hmmmm....

 

[JMcQueen]

If you think about it, sometimes a really healthy set of A-Bacs that take off and start dropping ammonia to zero on a daily basis may actually make the nitrite spike stage worse. You are adding more ammonia and they are producing triple the nitrite for all this ammonia. It becomes a really large mountain of nitrite for the fledgling N-Bacs to dig out from under. To make matters worse, nitrite itself (the very thing the N-Bacs need to process) can inhibit their growth, though I don't think as much as high nitrate does.

At times it makes me question the 5ppm first stage dosing and the 3ppm second stage dosing (OM47 and I already have speculated that even 1 or 2ppm during the second stage might keep things rolling enough.) There's a case to be made that possibly starting with very small doses and coaxing things along as low as possible but then doing a final ppm ramp-up in the 3rd stage might actually work better. Its just hard to experiment on beginners because you kind of hate to possibly give them a worse experience because of an experimental idea.

~~waterdrop~~

hmmmm....

I must admit I had been thinking along the same lines. Obviously when we're culturing the bacterias, were doing so with a loading that they're unlikely to ever actually experience once fish are added and therefore overpopulating with a view to allowing a degree of die back and then find an equilibrium once the fish are added.

I was wondering if it wouldnt be better to use te 4.9ppm to get an established colony and the processing side of things working in an infant stage and then reduce the ammonia levels down to a more realistic loading level and then build it up. This would then reduce the ammount of nitrite and nitrate in the water which we know inhibits the growth of the N-Bacs which we know take longer to get going than the A-Bacs.

The levels to which you build it up to are open to question though. For example, I only plan to introduce 2x 1-2 inch blackmoors to my 120L so initially the loading that they produce is going to be quite low but obviously as they grow, they'll pollute more and the bacterial colony will be required/enabled to grow with the increase in pollutants.

Therefore, after the 4.9ppm stage would it be better to reduce the amount of ammonia added down to 1ppm to refelect a light bio loading and then build it up to 2ppm for a buffer margin. Then add the fish which would result in the bacteria dying back to the lower processing level from the low level of pollutants they are now processing. They can then keep pace with the fishes growth.

I guess the crux of the argument issue is that we're potentially developing a much larger bacterial colony than were ever going to need so the time building up the said bacteria is possibly wasted. Much of it depends on how many and what type of fish you are planning on introducing.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

i get what you're all saying but there's a buy off here. the higher ppm of ammonia that you cycle too the longer it will take (generally!), that means your bacteria colony will be bigger and stronger.

so yes you can say it may take longer than you really need but on the other hand the bacteria colony will be more mature and stronger. it's quite common for the bacteria colony to have a bit of a wobble in the first few weeks after cycling. by cycling to a higher ppm of ammonia and consequently taking a bit longer over it you're making the colony a bit stronger and more mature meaning when you do get fish in you're less likely to have a wobble and have problems with fish in.

so yeah cycling to 5ppm takes a bit longer but it's also a bit safer. have patience, i know that sticky nitrite stage feels like it takes forever and you're desperate to have fish but in 6 months time do you think an extra week or so of cycling will stick in your memory? probably not, however if in the first few weeks you got a wobble of ammonia in the tank and killed your brand new fish will that stick in your memory - it probably will!

 

[JMcQueen]

i get what you're all saying but there's a buy off here. the higher ppm of ammonia that you cycle too the longer it will take (generally!), that means your bacteria colony will be bigger and stronger.

so yes you can say it may take longer than you really need but on the other hand the bacteria colony will be more mature and stronger. it's quite common for the bacteria colony to have a bit of a wobble in the first few weeks after cycling. by cycling to a higher ppm of ammonia and consequently taking a bit longer over it you're making the colony a bit stronger and more mature meaning when you do get fish in you're less likely to have a wobble and have problems with fish in.

so yeah cycling to 5ppm takes a bit longer but it's also a bit safer. have patience, i know that sticky nitrite stage feels like it takes forever and you're desperate to have fish but in 6 months time do you think an extra week or so of cycling will stick in your memory? probably not, however if in the first few weeks you got a wobble of ammonia in the tank and killed your brand new fish will that stick in your memory - it probably will!

Oh I agree and will continue, just discussing hypothethicals. Whilst the 4/5ppm method develops a larger colony, how much of that actually survives once the fish are introduced and the ammonia source drops dramatically? Using my example of 2x 2inch Blackmoors, despite being high polluting fish, the amount of ammonia that they'll produce is never going to be anyway near 5ppm in 12 hours. So a degree of bacterial death is inevitable as there isnt the food source to sustain it.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

yeah there will be some die off. i'm sure a remember a post from a few years ago discussing how someone had calculated the 5ppm that you use, i'll see if i can dig it up

 

[Miss Wiggle]

ok here's an interesting read for you http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/243855-when-is-a-cycle-finished/

bit of a long and sciency topic but certainly the first few pages give some good info on how the 5ppm is calculated.

 

[Twinklecaz]

My cat's breath smells like catfood.

 

[waterdrop]

(I'm sure Caz just put some joke right over my head)

Good link MW. Also, since back when that thread took place I've been reading some other interesting research results in the university literature about how microbiologists are finding more and more that the biofilms that autotrophic bacteria produce have "structure" to them - little channels made of calcium that help to direct the water more efficiently and things like that. Its just one more reason why giving the colonies time and letting them get a little big more mature can help them not cause mini-cycles after the fishless cycle is over in my opinion.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[JMcQueen]

Very interesting. I found a cycle log that I started for this tank today. Didnt realise it but I actually started the cycle on the 17th of July. Nearly 3 months and its still not done....

 

[Twinklecaz]

(I'm sure Caz just put some joke right over my head)


~~waterdrop~~

Lol it's from The Simpsons, Ralph says it. I mean what you're all talking about has gone way over my head