Tank is Cycled Baby (31 days)

Sj45

Understandable, although my fish were not under stressful conditions during cycling because my nitrites/ammonia never reached higher than 1.0 (you guys will probably think that's too high) and I continually did water changes. You can do a "fish cycle" w/o harming fish, and the majority of aquarium keepers will without waiting 6 months for an angelfish.

FordMan

i agree but that's in general for all web fish advice i mean who wants to be responcible for killing someone elses fish . New tank... i'd do water changes week ly about 20% and after a couplemonths every two weeks then if you have real plants every 4 weeks

Tyyrlym

The reason that people are cautious is that the odds of things working out well are vastly greater when things are taken slowly. Yes, cycling fishlessly can take a month, but at the end you won't have lost a single fish and when you do start to add them in it will be as stress free as possible and you're highly unlikely to lose any. Same thing with waiting to add angels or any other less hardy fish. If you wait then you can be sure your tank is stable and settled and your own fish-keeping habits are established before taking on the keeping of fish that require more diligence on your part and are far less tolerant of upsets in their environment.

People are cautious and advocate paitence because those methods work. You can advise people to use those methods without having to qualify your statements with, "You probably won't lose too many fish."

As for 1.0 ppm of ammonia not being harmful. I've cycled with fish. Above 0.5 ppm I saw them starting to act differently than they did at lower or no ammonia readings so yes, I consider 1.0 ppm too high. There's also no good reason not to change the water in your aquarium on a regular basis.

onefish2fish

IMO fishless cycling is faster. reason i say this is because you do not have to do water changes like you do when you have fish (to keep them alive) and you can even pump you heater up alittle warmer.
the water changes just disrupt the cycling process.

Tyyrlym

No, they really don't.

FordMan

yeah i agre with ty, the bacteria deffinately grow at a steady rate nothing you do will make make them grow faster except adding a live culture availible at your lfs of a random mature tank you have at home thats why i like the one fish at a time process and to be honest who cares if you loose a danio? i mean i go tuna fishing in the summer thats way nastier than amonia poisoning i mean a danio only lives two years anyway that means you buy a full grown danio he only has a year left as it is who cares if he and his cousin succumb to cycling better than being eaten by a fish hawk

onefish2fish

well i can agree on taking water out and replacing wouldnt hurt the cycle but gravel vac-ing will disrupt the bacteria.
i must say i def. dont agree on the "who cares if we loose a danio" theory. really if it can clearly be avoided then why even put a fish in that situation. really this can be an on going debate on doing a fishless or fish cycle when either one (when done correctly) will work. if you want my opinion, fishless cycling is the way to go as it doesnt put any fish at risk of ammonia burning their gills and internal organs and death as well as the couple bucks you save on buying the fish to put in to start the cycle and the time it takes to properly do water changes to keep the fish alive and comfortable.

Sj45

ammonia doesn't cost money?

FordMan

btw i still have all my cycling danios and i didn't have to do daily water changes i just fed them very little i just feel natural cycling is better than pour window cleaner into your tank and word up on the back up sj i'ma have to friend you son haha

onefish2fish

ammonia in most cases is in the house already if not its only a few bucks for a gallon jug which is enough to cycle a ton of tanks. not performing water changes while doing a cycle with fish is not properly caring for the fish IMO.