Betta Fish Care  
Go Back   Betta Fish and Betta Fish Care > Betta Fish Bowls, Habitats, and Accessories
Check out the eBook Betta Fish Care Made Easy
betta fish
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-07-2013, 11:35 PM   #81 
jaysee
Reference Team
 
jaysee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brigantine, NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betta Free View Post
is the fish-in cycle good? because one: I don't want to go out to buy stuff, do all the measuring and change the water etc. I just don't have the time (and parents wouldn't really allow all that unless I'm cleaning it but I'm worried that my betta will die *tears*
Sounds like you should do a fishless cycle. A fish in cycle is 100 times more time consuming with water changes and what not.
jaysee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 06:37 AM   #82 
Hallyx
Reference Team
 
Hallyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fungus corners
While that may be true, you really don't need the high level of nitrifying bacteria that a fishless cycle typically produces, if you're only stocking one Betta.

I must say, fidget, you have a very sophisticated understanding of the nitrogen cycle, as well as it's relationship to pH. Here's a chart that will answer your question of how much is free ammonia and how much id ammonium depending on pH and temperature, another slight consideration.

http://cnykoi.com/calculators/calcnh3c.asp

Both Amquel and Prime converts the chloramine into chlorine and ammonia. Then they deal with the chlorine somehow and ionize the ammonia into ammonium, as you know. Your 6.6pH tank has mostly ammonium and little free ammonia. The 7.0pH tank has a slightly higher percentage of free ammonia. See chart for exact numbers.

I don't think the chlorine conversion will produce 0.50ppm ammonia unless you have a LOT of chloramine in your tapwater.

I've been taught not to mess with pH. But dealing with the complexities of low pH, and the difficulties of cycling low pH water, is a question Olympia could answer better than I.

And thanks for that interesting and very informative link.

Last edited by Hallyx; 09-08-2013 at 06:57 AM.
Hallyx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 03:53 PM   #83 
fidget
Member
 
fidget's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Perfect, thank you!
I'm going to have both fish in the large divided tank, provided they like it.
I have a chemistry background (college droupout lol) hopefully that's helping me out. I really want to have a good understanding of what's going on in my tank as well as betta care. Those little guys have really charmed me!
I wouldn't try to up the pH with chemicals- just more partial water changes, if necessary.
fidget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 07:38 PM   #84 
CarCarGoVroom
New Member
 
CarCarGoVroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Michigan
Yay, first signs of the start of a good cycle I think. I'm two weeks into my new tank set up.
pH-7.6<-Has been staying at this.
Ammonia- 0.25ppm and continues to drop
Nitrite- 0.50ppm
Nitrate- 5.0ppm
CarCarGoVroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2013, 09:27 PM   #85 
jaysee
Reference Team
 
jaysee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brigantine, NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallyx View Post
While that may be true, you really don't need the high level of nitrifying bacteria that a fishless cycle typically produces, if you're only stocking one Betta.
I agree - the tank needn't process 4 ppm of ammonia per day. Is it necessary to dose that high with ammonia?

I don't think the size of the colony is important when compared to the benefit of putting a fish in a cycled tank. Besides, it's no extra work to build a bigger colony to start. Too, that larger colony means a larger buffer to protect against newbie mistakes.

My $0.02
jaysee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 06:47 AM   #86 
Hallyx
Reference Team
 
Hallyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fungus corners
CC, do a 50% water change to keep your nitrite below 0.25ppm. Watch your nitrate grow. You're on the way.

Yeah, jaysee, that about encapsulates the argument pro and con. Other than an overly large colony dying back and producing ammonia, there is no disadvantage to growing too big of a bacteria colony, as far as I know..

But I hate to see new keepers running a small unfiltered bowl for weeks while waiting for their wonderful, large display tank to cycle. I feel this is harder on the fish than living in a low-ammonia environment (<0.25ppm). The keeper has to do water changes anyway. Twice a week is not much harder than once, and it soon becomes once a week.

It also avoids the complexity and learning curve of a fishless cycle, although I'm all for learning as much as possible about the nitrogen cycle. Fish-in cycling for a single Betta is just too simple and convenient not to recommend.

You can have your $0.02 back. Contribute to the beaslbob build. ;-}

Last edited by Hallyx; 12-06-2013 at 06:57 AM.
Hallyx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 06:55 AM   #87 
jaysee
Reference Team
 
jaysee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brigantine, NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallyx View Post
Yeah, jaysee, that about encapsulates the argument pro and con. Other than an overly large colony dying back and producing ammonia, there is no disadvantage to growing too big of a bacteria colony.

But I hate to see new keepers running a small unfiltered tank for weeks while waiting for their display tank to cycle. I feel this is harder on the stock fish than living in a low-ammonia environment (<0.25ppm). The keeper has to do water changes anyway. Twice a week is not much harder than once, and it soon becomes once a week.

It also avoids the complexity and learning curve of a fishless cycle, although I'm all for learning as much as possible about the nitrogen cycle.

Fish-in cycling for a single Betta is just too simple and convenient not to recommend.

You can have your $0.02 back. Contribute to the beaslbob build. ;-}
Well let's look at this logically - if the bacteria colony is dying back, then that means that they are starving to death. If they are dying of starvation, then the ammonia produced would certainly be consumed by the surviving, starving bacteria, no?

True that - when it's a matter of keeping a fish in a smaller uncycled tank versus a larger uncycled tank, the larger is unquestionably better.
jaysee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 06:59 AM   #88 
jaysee
Reference Team
 
jaysee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Brigantine, NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallyx View Post

Yeah, jaysee, that about encapsulates the argument pro and con. Other than an overly large colony dying back and producing ammonia, there is no disadvantage to growing too big of a bacteria colony, as far as I know..

But I hate to see new keepers running a small unfiltered bowl for weeks while waiting for their wonderful, large display tank to cycle. I feel this is harder on the fish than living in a low-ammonia environment (<0.25ppm). The keeper has to do water changes anyway. Twice a week is not much harder than once, and it soon becomes once a week.

It also avoids the complexity and learning curve of a fishless cycle, although I'm all for learning as much as possible about the nitrogen cycle. Fish-in cycling for a single Betta is just too simple and convenient not to recommend.
Well let's look at this logically - if the bacteria is dying off then that means they are starving to death. If they are starving to death, then the ammonia produced by their death would be eagerly consumed by the surviving, starving bacteria, no?

True that - if it's a matter of keeping the fish in a smaller uncycled tank versus a larger uncycled tank, the larger is unquestionably better.
jaysee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 07:42 AM   #89 
rickey
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sarasota Fl
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysee View Post
Well let's look at this logically - if the bacteria is dying off then that means they are starving to death. If they are starving to death, then the ammonia produced by their death would be eagerly consumed by the surviving, starving bacteria, no?

True that - if it's a matter of keeping the fish in a smaller uncycled tank versus a larger uncycled tank, the larger is unquestionably better.
I will put fore a different argument, That the limiting factor at high ammonia levels is O2
When high ammonia and high DOC enters a body of water, dissolved oxygen is lost first to the biological oxidation of organic carbon to carbon dioxide and then to the oxidation of ammonia. That is, oxygen demand can be thought of in two stages: a carbonaceous oxygen demand and a nitrogenous oxygen demand. The uptake of oxygen in a body of water is expressed graphically as the classic DO sag curve.
All waters have the ability to replenish a some or all of this oxygen through reaeration created by turbulence and to a lesser extent by aquatic plant life photosynthesis. In high population densities, however, the organic and nitrogen loadings can quickly exceed the capacity of a water to replenish the consumed dissolved oxygen. If all the oxygen is consumed, the water will become septic -- a condition which is not only unpleasant but also uninhabitable to the aquatic life associated with the nitrogen cycle. If the dissolved oxygen levels are reduced by even a few parts per million, the species which normally inhabits the water will be severely impacted. In waster water treatment this is referred to as the ecological balance of nitrogen. It is possible to induce so much ammonia that all O2 is consumed and the ammonia cycle collapse. Of course the is hypothetical in an aquarium setting, we"re not running a sewer treatment plant.

R
rickey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2013, 08:48 AM   #90 
Hallyx
Reference Team
 
Hallyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fungus corners
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysee View Post
Well let's look at this logically - if the bacteria is dying off then that means they are starving to death. If they are starving to death, then the ammonia produced by their death would be eagerly consumed by the surviving, starving bacteria, no?
Deja Vu. I've read this before, maybe by you. I don't know how much or how fast ammonia is created by starving bacteria. You're probably right: slow enough to be processed by ammonia-oxidizing bacteria.

And, yeah, I used to think it fun to "power" cycle huge colonies up to >7.0ppm/day. I had a giant Betta that could put out 0.5ppm/day into a 5g. I assume a standard active Betta would generate no more than half that. But I'm too lazy to find out.
Hallyx is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DIVIDING TUTORIAL, step-by-step with pics Neelie Betta Fish Bowls, Habitats, and Accessories 92 11-21-2013 07:44 PM
Step-by-Step Styrofoam Cup Filter Baffle XxBettaLoverxX Betta Fish Bowls, Habitats, and Accessories 7 03-10-2012 11:29 PM
How, in a step-by-step explanation, do I do a fish-cycle? Hostess Betta Fish Bowls, Habitats, and Accessories 8 02-04-2012 06:30 PM
STEP-BY-STEP water changing 2.5g WITH PICS Neelie Betta Fish Bowls, Habitats, and Accessories 23 11-15-2011 12:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.