Starting Up With Tufa Rock

[richard t]

Just a few quotes. Ethos-" Thats your opinion, its not fact. So you can not speak of it as fact. ( Refering to my opinion that cycling with fish was cruel).

During the cycle Ammonia peaks at around 5ppm and Nitrites at 11-12ppm. This can be diluted during the cycle period with plenty of water changes. But considering 0ppm of NO2/NH3/NH4 are recommended for fish, this will make the tank a very unhospitable home to live.

I know "home to live sounds very human", but your tank is their home, somewhere to live not just to survive!

Ethos you say it's my opinion it's cruel. But it's not just my opinion is it.

Quote Chestnutmorey55-" Like Ethos i too use fish to cycle. You need a steady supply of ammonia for a cycle to happen and fish are by far the most efficient way of doing this. IT MAY HURT THE FISH A LITTLE, HOWEVER THEY WILL GET BETTER AND IF THEY DON'T, WELL IT'S NOT THAT BIGGER DEAL."

Chestnut does not say cruel, but his opinion indicates it is harmful.

Quote Fish Keeper2- "Yes cycling with fish is harmful to their health.

So with reference to Jamie i trust you will not cycle with fish.

Quote Jamie- "I MEAN NO HARM TO ANYONE OR CRUELTY TO ANY FISH, THATS NOT MY INTENTION.

 

[Ethos]

Just out of curiosity, tigerknife, what do you think one fish, or even a school of fish - has to offer the world?
Most are bred for a reason - To be sold. Many are bred very poorly, and become weak. Did you know that often, more than 50% of all fish shipped die in shipping? 90% of all fish shipped to walmart dies either in shipping or in their filthy tanks.
Then, 96% of that dies from un-knowing buyers.
That leaves about 4% of fish shipped to walmart enoguh time to live a "full life" which is a couple of months, maybe a few years, but thats rare.
I cycled my 55G a few months ago, and I still have its cyclies.

 

[Ed4567]

But you could simply add the food that you would have feed the fish straight into the tank. You will get exactly the same amount of ammonia produced (the nitrogen atoms have to come from somewhere) without being stuck with a damsel that could cause you hassel later on when you want to add other fish.

 

[Ethos]

If you weould have read what was said earlier, you would have understood that we established that there is no need to use fish for cycling with LR involved. I'm talking about cycling without LR.
And you wouldn't be stuick with the damsel, you could sell it.

 

[Lynden]

Cycling with fish is NOT a massive cruelty to the earth!!! Like Ethos said, fish are usually bred for profit, NOT for long lives. As many as 75% of frestwater fish are mass-bred, and the amount of captive-bred marines is steadily rising. 96% of wal-mart fish will die from reasons other than old age, so if you guys want to ***** to someone about being cruel to fish, let it be a wal-mart or other incompetent petstore, and not some innocent fishkeeper who is probably trying to help. I am very sad to say this, but a fish or a shoal of fish just doesnt have very much to give to the world. Ethos's posts are consistently correct, and i will be one to back them up.

Sorry to fly off the handle here, but some of you guys are being rediculous. Also, I am very aware that I may be one of those.

Again, if fish cycling is so cruel, then why were my mollies at top health, and even breeding? Shouldnt we a least see a few symptoms if this fish is recieving nitrogen poisoning?

-Lynden

 

[j@mie]

ok, this is being blown all out of proportion! - whatever course of action i choose is indeed up to me, i can see both sides to the coin but i think going from a nice thread about cycling with tufa rock, to a thread where people are bitching to each other, is just daft.

but, i would like to thank everyone personally, because now i know not to mention cycling with fish again. lol

thanks guys.

 

[maestro]

ok, this is being blown all out of proportion! - whatever course of action i choose is indeed up to me, i can see both sides to the coin but i think going from a nice thread about cycling with tufa rock, to a thread where people are bitching to each other, is just daft.

but, i would like to thank everyone personally, because now i know not to mention cycling with fish again. lol

thanks guys.

Unfortunately Jamie Live rock is an essential for a marine tank, you dont need to use all live rock but atleast some to seed the rest of the rock.

Get a scoop of sand from a mature marien setup and mix it with your own sand to seed that, reef sand and teh sand used for tropical tanks are different so thats worth looking into.

I think you need to invest in a couple of decent books and then you can make up your mind but certainly dont rush a marine tank, it will end up a disaster, maybe it might be better to continue with you tropical plans and plan ahead a marine tank for next time?

 

[Ed4567]

If you weould have read what was said earlier, you would have understood that we established that there is no need to use fish for cycling with LR involved. I'm talking

I didn't mention live rock at all in my post.

And you wouldn't be stuick with the damsel, you could sell it.

If j@mie has already said he'd rather not take his rockwork apart, in my opinion getting a damsel out of the tank isn't going to be easy.

 

[andywg]

Cycling with fish is NOT a massive cruelty to the earth!!! Like Ethos said, fish are usually bred for profit, NOT for long lives. As many as 75% of frestwater fish are mass-bred, and the amount of captive-bred marines is steadily rising. 96% of wal-mart fish will die from reasons other than old age, so if you guys want to ***** to someone about being cruel to fish, let it be a wal-mart or other incompetent petstore, and not some innocent fishkeeper who is probably trying to help. I am very sad to say this, but a fish or a shoal of fish just doesnt have very much to give to the world. Ethos's posts are consistently correct, and i will be one to back them up.

Sorry to fly off the handle here, but some of you guys are being rediculous. Also, I am very aware that I may be one of those.

Again, if fish cycling is so cruel, then why were my mollies at top health, and even breeding? Shouldnt we a least see a few symptoms if this fish is recieving nitrogen poisoning?

-Lynden

Something to remember with marine is that a lot of the fish aren't bred at all, they are live caught. Plucking fish from the reef just to save someone's patience is a step back in humane treatment of the fauna of this world.

How do you know your mollies are at top health, how old are they? can you see the state of their internal organs? Ammonia is poisonous to fish. Simple as that. While cycling is possible with fish and they may survive a while after, why put the fish through that? If you can't be bothered about the health of a fish at the start, why will your view change at a later date?

Ethos posts are far from correct. He says you wouldn't be stuck with the damsels when we have already established it'll be a pretty good achievement to grab it without ripping the tank down.

He then talks about Walmart as if that is a good place to look at responsible fish keeping. He is using the lowest common denominator to make his views seem somehow acceptable as his views aren't quite as bad as theirs.

Fishless cycling without LR: Ethos infers that you have to add chemicals. This is wrong. You can just add food (i.e. a dead prawn or flake food) and moniter the settings. And so what if you add chemicals and put too much ammonia in as a pure chemical, it'll mean that you grow more bacteria at the start and can probably add more fish in the first go.

 

[Ethos]

Ethos posts are far from correct. He says you wouldn't be stuck with the damsels when we have already established it'll be a pretty good achievement to grab it without ripping the tank down.

I mean as long as you switch it with another fish. I love debates like these, but for some reason everyone gets in a huff and puff state and can't stop from using vulger terms, so its not really worth it.

He then talks about Walmart as if that is a good place to look at responsible fish keeping. He is using the lowest common denominator to make his views seem somehow acceptable as his views aren't quite as bad as theirs.

Do you really expect in a debate I'll use a place like petco (who takes fantastic care of their fish) to prove my point? No. You pick the spot were the opposite side is at ots weakest.
You obviously fail debate class.

I have to stop now because, like J@amie already mentioned, this was a simple thread on cycling.
It turned into a huge cut-down-eachother-and-try-to-get-them-down-low-so-you-can-kick-them thing. its not worth it really.

My opinion is that fishless cycling is OK, and I will continue to think that. I am open to changing my opinions, but nothing here has made me think to change it. Slandering someone doesn't help you prove your point.

 

[Lynden]

Very large post - you have been warned

Ethos posts are far from correct. He says you wouldn't be stuck with the damsels when we have already established it'll be a pretty good achievement to grab it without ripping the tank down.

I mean as long as you switch it with another fish. I love debates like these, but for some reason everyone gets in a huff and puff state and can't stop from using vulger terms, so its not really worth it.

He then talks about Walmart as if that is a good place to look at responsible fish keeping. He is using the lowest common denominator to make his views seem somehow acceptable as his views aren't quite as bad as theirs.

Do you really expect in a debate I'll use a place like petco (who takes fantastic care of their fish) to prove my point? No. You pick the spot were the opposite side is at ots weakest.
You obviously fail debate class.

I have to stop now because, like J@amie already mentioned, this was a simple thread on cycling.
It turned into a huge cut-down-eachother-and-try-to-get-them-down-low-so-you-can-kick-them thing. its not worth it really.

My opinion is that fishless cycling is OK, and I will continue to think that. I am open to changing my opinions, but nothing here has made me think to change it. Slandering someone doesn't help you prove your point.

We think alot alike. Except I tend to be a little more aggressive, and very stubborn.

Ethos's posts are indeed correct. He is excellent at debating, something the rest of you seem to be incapable of "competing" with.

Something i would like to point out, is that we all do not (i hope) despise eachother, j@mie. It may seem like I do, but it is simply the fact that i am a ferocious protector of my opinions, and all the info i see trying to be preached does not effect my opinion. Decisive points do, which we have yet to see.

I am dreadfully sorry, j@mie. Here is the method I used, it has worked remarkably well:

1. (day 1) Start out with as much tufa and lava rock as will cover about half the tank. Stack this to make a few caves. Use bacterial accelerants, and of course dechlorinator.

2. (day 2-4) The next day, purchase a trio of mollies (one male, two females). When they begin to swim happily and breed, add 1 yellow-tailed (or similiar damsel) to the tank. A captive-bred occelaris clown can also fill this task.

3. (day 2-until level is down) Begin testing for nitrites. They will be very high. Continue to add bacterial accelerants.

4. (when diatoms appear) Begin with your cleanup crew. Only purchase around 3 hermits or snails, in case you wronged and they perish.

5. (day 7-10) Purchase a few more strong fish. Be extremly careful, and consider using a hospital tank, to avoid introducing cryptocarrion and amyloodinuim. An outbreak will kill the startup fish. Give the fish spirulina and garlic to help avoid parasites.

6. (day 15-20) Add some live rock. When the coco worms (little white tubes) begin to colonize the tank, it is safe to upgrade your cleanup crew, and buy a few of the stronger inverts, such as a coral banded shrimp or a feather duster.

7. (day 20-40) Continue to add live rock, and finish up your bottle of bacterial accelerants. When your pounds of rock equal half the number of gallons your tank holds, remove the tufa, and often all non-live rock, save reef bones. If not, your nitrites will stay high as the tufa begins to release stored-up toxins.

8. (day 30-50) The tank will often become crystal clear at this time. You should have your skimmer by now, to make sure that nitrates do not build up too high. Water changes work too, but a skimmer is essential.

9. (day 40-70) Tank maturity beckons. Add more sensitive invertebrates and fishes, and if you like, remove the starter fishes. Upgrade your cleanup crew, and if your lights are good enough, add some polyps. Slowly begin to "reefitize" the tank with all kinds of animals.

10. (day 80-on) Continue to upgrade cleanup crews, add more live rock, and put more reef dwellers into the tank. Your choices are near unlimited, over 2 million inverts and thousands of fish species await. Beautify the tank. Make sure to test water occasionally and keep all parameters at a good level.

11. (if you feel you need to) Consider upgrading the tank.

Good luck. This is the method I used, you can tweak it as much as you like to optimize the tank.
Its all up to you now

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

Do you really expect in a debate I'll use a place like petco (who takes fantastic care of their fish) to prove my point? No. You pick the spot were the opposite side is at ots weakest.
You obviously fail debate class.

That is my point. you stengthen your view by comparing it to the worst practice. If you were to visit the vast majority of reef forums (with comuunities ten times the size of the entire TFF) you would find a large majority advocate fishless cycling due to the impact of putting a fish into a toxic soup.

I fail debating class because you point out the bottom end of treatment and I say that just glorifies your response when you can compare it to higher care...

My opinion is that fishless cycling is OK, and I will continue to think that. I am open to changing my opinions, but nothing here has made me think to change it. Slandering someone doesn't help you prove your point.

I slandered no-one. It is impossible to slander on the internet since slander is the verbal defamation of someone.

I guess I could say you fail English class, eh? But I won't stoop to that. I will say this:

We all know that keeping fish in a tank that has ammonia and nitrites present (and to a lesser extent nitrates) is bad for them as these compunds are hazardous to the fish.

Also: the majority of us on this forum care enough about our fish to give them a proper, and healthy environment.

So why, when there is a perfectly good alternative to putting a fish through the harmful environment of a cycling tank, do we not advocate the patience of fishless cycling (the most important attribute for a reefer)?

 

[maestro]

Im in total agreement with andywg here, good mature liverock will automatically cycle your tank very quicckly and it the best way to mature your tank, its easy too.

Fill tank with ro water, heat to correct temp and add salt to acheive correct salinity

Add live rock, you need .5kg per gallon of water.

Wait 2 weeks for tank to mature

Start stocking slowly, i,e 1 fish per month max.

Live rock isnt cheap, but when you take wild fish out of the ocean moraly you have a duty imo to give them the best chance and not put there life in danger for th3 sake of a £

 

[Chac]

Do you really expect in a debate I'll use a place like petco (who takes fantastic care of their fish) to prove my point? No. You pick the spot were the opposite side is at ots weakest.
You obviously fail debate class.

That is my point. you stengthen your view by comparing it to the worst practice. If you were to visit the vast majority of reef forums (with comuunities ten times the size of the entire TFF) you would find a large majority advocate fishless cycling due to the impact of putting a fish into a toxic soup.

I fail debating class because you point out the bottom end of treatment and I say that just glorifies your response when you can compare it to higher care...

My opinion is that fishless cycling is OK, and I will continue to think that. I am open to changing my opinions, but nothing here has made me think to change it. Slandering someone doesn't help you prove your point.

I slandered no-one. It is impossible to slander on the internet since slander is the verbal defamation of someone.

I guess I could say you fail English class, eh? But I won't stoop to that. I will say this:

We all know that keeping fish in a tank that has ammonia and nitrites present (and to a lesser extent nitrates) is bad for them as these compunds are hazardous to the fish.

Also: the majority of us on this forum care enough about our fish to give them a proper, and healthy environment.

So why, when there is a perfectly good alternative to putting a fish through the harmful environment of a cycling tank, do we not advocate the patience of fishless cycling (the most important attribute for a reefer)?

This is exactly my point (Stated in a better fashion than I could have put), I completely agree that treating Livestock in this way is wrong and goes against the whole idea of Fishkeeping

 

[Ed4567]

ChestnutMoray55 please don't take this the wrong way, but a month ago you were telling us that how your shrimp were of comparible intelligence to chimps and other vertebrates. Now you're saying you have no problem subjecting fish to conditions that are at best less than optimal?