# Can you instantly cycle your new filter this way?



## mboley (Jan 26, 2018)

In three words: no, absolutely not.


----------



## Streetwise (May 24, 2019)

Do they use the same filter? Can you just trade a fraction of your foam? I'm not saying it would auto-cycle their tank, but you would be gifting some healthy bacteria.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Better use of mulm water is to poor it into gravel bed when you start filling tank up so it seeds into gravel bed. Way more surface area for bacteria to populate. Gravel bed is always biggest and best biological filter. 

If tanks already filled get a ketchup squeeze bottle and go around and squirt a little bit of mulm water into substrate about every 2”. Dump rest into tank and let filter pads pick it up. 

It can very much speed up cycling nicely but go easy with mulm and it’s not a full on instant cycling no matter what someone on internet said.


----------



## livebearerlove (Aug 20, 2013)

Short answer, no.
However.... If you were to put 'items' in your tank or filter for a week - or three, then gift him that- he would get an extra boost. I do it all the time when I get new tanks- generally bacteria sticks to 'stuffs' (I call it when im being coy). But here is my routine: I use some rocks, substrate and filter media from an established tank in the new tank. I fill and add liquid ammonia for a week or so.... no water changes, lights off.
After that I check and if things are going in the right direction, then I add 'liquid beneficial bacteria'... people can argue whether or not this helps- but personally i figure it cant hurt. I keep dosing until my ammonia dosing reads 0, 12 hours after dosing and my nitrates are high.


----------



## EdWiser (Jul 14, 2015)

Bacteria will only grow to the level where the bacteria colony has enough food to live. One can not create more bacteria if there is no food for them to ingest. Bacteria inside the aquarium will consume the vast majority of the waste that feeding and fish waste provides.

Bump: Bacteria will only grow to the level where the bacteria colony has enough food to live. One can not create more bacteria if there is no food for them to ingest. Bacteria inside the aquarium will consume the vast majority of the waste that feeding and fish waste provides.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

It's interesting that folks that agree that putting media from an established tank/filter in a new filter jump starts a cycle, but not that 'cleaning' those same sponges in the the new tank water won't!
I 'instant cycle' new tank/filters (even in bare bottom grow out tanks) by doing exactly that - I simply take one or more sponges from a healthy tank/filter and 'clean' it in the new tank water. This seeds the new filter with BB. I first learned of this some 20 years ago!
The Bailey Brothers speak of it in one of their podcasts back in early 2k.
The Bailey Brothers Pet Fish Talk

Aquarium Water : 8:40


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

You can only rush nature so much. Squeezing a sponge from a large Aqua Clear that has been running on a healthy mature tank is certainly going to help things along -and I do every time I set up a new aquarium. I'd imagine countless millions of nitrifying bacteria are going to be in that rinse water. Any plant that is growing will remove nitrogen as well. But I don't know of a method that doesn't take some time. Surely many of those bacteria perish from the parameter changes and disturbance, and there's just a "settling in" period for lack of a better term before they reach peak effectiveness. 

Ever found a small fish that has been dead for a day or more in a newer tank? They almost always have cottony fuzz covering them. The same dead fish in a thriving 4 year old planted tank will dissolve into nothing in that time. When I was into reef aquariums, ORP (oxidation reduction potential) was becoming all the rage. This is basically your water's ability to oxidize a contaminant. I suspect you would find similar varying ORP readings in a mature planted system compared to a newer one as well though I don't know of people concerning themselves with this value in freshwater. But make no mistake, you can get an aquarium "cycled" in a few weeks (meaning no NH4 or NO2 and NO3 is showing), especially with growing plants but this same tank is not nearly the stable ecosystem that it will become after several months or even years.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

AbbeysDad said:


> It's interesting that folks that agree that putting media from an established tank/filter in a new filter jump starts a cycle, but not that 'cleaning' those same sponges in the the new tank water won't!
> I 'instant cycle' new tank/filters (even in bare bottom grow out tanks) by doing exactly that - I simply take one or more sponges from a healthy tank/filter and 'clean' it in the new tank water. This seeds the new filter with BB. I first learned of this some 20 years ago!
> The Bailey Brothers speak of it in one of their podcasts back in early 2k.
> The Bailey Brothers Pet Fish Talk
> ...


Seeding adds all the BB strains and also provides a modest amount of organic waste for them to use as food source short term. But you still need to provide a long term food source by feeding fish or ammonia dosing to keep them fed if you want them to fully populate bio media.


----------



## discuspaul (Jul 27, 2010)

DaveKS said:


> Seeding adds all the BB strains and also provides a modest amount of organic waste for them to use as food source short term. But you still need to provide a long term food source by feeding fish or ammonia dosing to keep them fed if you want them to fully populate bio media.



Agree.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

DaveKS said:


> Seeding adds all the BB strains and also provides a modest amount of organic waste for them to use as food source short term. But you still need to provide a long term food source by feeding fish or ammonia dosing to keep them fed if you want them to fully populate bio media.


 Well yea....you add fish right away! Not a bio overload, but a few fish or many fry. For example, I recently setup another bare bottom 29g grow out tank with an Aquaclear 50. Once the temp was stable (about 77F) I cleaned the sponges from my 37g tank Aquaclear 70 filter (filled with bio-sponges) in the new tank water. A couple of hours later I added a few water sprite plants, some guppy grass, and about 50+ Swordtail fry. That was a couple of weeks ago and even with heavy feeding 3-4 times daily (fry are hungry little guys) ALL IS WELL.
Disclaimer: Having written the above I should point out that it's a fry grow out tank. As such, I stay on top or water changes. 



'Instant cycle' works as I've been doing it for over 20 of the 50+ years I've been in the hobby.


Footnote: I know of hobbyists with NEW heavily planted tanks that add a few fish right away w/o even the 'instant cycle' that we're talking about. The plants use the ammonia as their N2 source and BB slowly develops to pick up the slack. The real key is only adding a few fish at a time so the ammonia created does not exceed the environments capability to deal with it. Still, given 'food' and O2, BB colony(ies) develop quickly.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

It definitely works for many. But it's absolutely not an ideal setup and doesn't allow for the same kind of environment that's created when a tank is allowed to mature for a month or two - developing biofilm, beneficial bacteria all over the place, and all that comes with it.

Through the past several decades, hobbyists have discovered that there are more humane, more ideal ways to create healthy habitats for the critters we keep in glass boxes of water. And that's why most of us shy away from doing things fast & easy and focus on slow and steady whenever possible. Hence all the comments in this thread.



AbbeysDad said:


> Well yea....you add fish right away! Not a bio overload, but a few fish or many fry. For example, I recently setup another bare bottom 29g grow out tank with an Aquaclear 50. Once the temp was stable (about 77F) I cleaned the sponges from my 37g tank Aquaclear 70 filter (filled with bio-sponges) in the new tank water. A couple of hours later I added a few water sprite plants, some guppy grass, and about 50+ Swordtail fry. That was a couple of weeks ago and even with heavy feeding 3-4 times daily (fry are hungry little guys) ALL IS WELL.
> Disclaimer: Having written the above I should point out that it's a fry grow out tank. As such, I stay on top or water changes.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Quint (Mar 24, 2019)

How fast will the BB reproduce? 

If seeding a new tank and providing a small bioload right off the bat it should stabilize very quickly. The key to doing what abbysdad talks about is not dumping an entire host of inhabitants in the tank right away.


----------



## babystarz (Sep 25, 2012)

Yes - I think the key point here is that there is always a possibility that a seeded tank could fail to cycle. Even if you move a mature filter/substrate/plants/decorations in from an established tank. I often set up multiple seeded tanks at a time and several times, I've had two tanks set up exactly the same way, at exactly the same time, and one cycles almost immediately while the other goes through an adjustment period with some ammonia or nitrite spikes where you can actually smell that the water is "off". 

It's like any situation where you're taking a "sterile" environment and trying to get specific bacteria to colonize. Take a human body after a course of antibiotics as an equivalent example. Many people have issues with yeast or overgrowth of bad bacteria in their bodies after a course of antibiotics knocks out their natural gut flora. Sometimes this requires additional treatment with antifungals or even stronger things. This can happen even if you take all precautions like taking probiotics. 

This just isn't a guaranteed, 100% foolproof process. In identical setups you could have some tanks cycle right away and some tanks fail to seed. Taking time to make sure a new tank has stabilized prevents bad things from happening to livestock. It's also important to be aware of the tolerance and hardiness of your livestock. I often add a snail or two first to a new tank that appears to have stabilized. If the snail is fine, after a few days I add a guppy. If the guppy is fine after a few days, I add a shrimp. Basically I take the hardiest creature that I wouldn't mind losing one of to be the canary in the coal mine. If the snail, guppy and shrimp are all fine and water parameters continue to test where they should after a week, I then slowly add in more sensitive critters over time to allow the nitrifying bacteria to catch up to the increased waste production. If at any point things start to go downhill I remove the critters back to an established tank and treat the tank like it's brand new and wasn't seeded - I go through a fishless cycle at that point. I no longer experience deaths due to new tank syndrome, or "unexplained" deaths that are likely due to unstable water parameters.

I made enough mistakes with adding livestock to new tanks that hadn't cycled when I first started out with aquariums and lost enough poor fish that I don't find it worth the risk and stress to push things too much and rush. E.g. I am picking up some shell dweller cichlids this weekend even though their designated tank isn't ready so they're going in a long-established 10 gallon or two temporarily. Would I rather put them in their permanent tank right away? Of course, but that's not going to be good for them and I would feel like I'm failing in my duty to use good animal husbandry practices. Ideally I'd just wait to pick them up until their permanent tank has cycled but that's not an option this time around. So the 10 gallon(s) will keep them safe and happy in the meantime


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

somewhatshocked said:


> It definitely works for many. But it's absolutely not an ideal setup and doesn't allow for the same kind of environment that's created when a tank is allowed to mature for a month or two - developing biofilm, beneficial bacteria all over the place, and all that comes with it.
> 
> Through the past several decades, hobbyists have discovered that there are more humane, more ideal ways to create healthy habitats for the critters we keep in glass boxes of water. And that's why most of us shy away from doing things fast & easy and focus on slow and steady whenever possible. Hence all the comments in this thread.



If you have one or more established healthy tanks it makes no sense to setup a new tank with bottled ammonia and wait 6-8 weeks for a cycle to happen. 

There's absolutely nothing inhumane about properly seeding a new tank with beneficial biology, fast growing floating plants, and using common sense about stocking. I've done it many, many times and never lost a fish! 

It's pointless to debate something that's been done successfully so many times.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Although I know it could be done and has been done over and over I never understood the need to "rush" a cycle and put fish in.

For the last 10 years or so, I plant the tank, let them get settled, move things around to my likening and do a larger weekly water change. Usually around 4 weeks I slowly had fish until I eventually get up to the stock I want. I've never had a problem doing it this way.

I don't add any ammonia or BB starter and don't worry about a formal cycle. There is bacteria on the plants as well as some ammonia from dying leaves etc.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

The notion of an "instant-cycle" with _established media_ is so misleading- especially for those new to aquarium keeping- who are still unfamiliar with the nitrogen cycle. I wish it would go back where it came from. 
Better that newcomers learn that cycles depend on many factors that they will, in time, be able to respond to according to the situation. Until then, proceed with caution because there is much more to the nitrogen cycle then the API ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate test will tell you. 
Like it has been mentioned, it takes months for a cycle to fully establish itself in aquarium- I have heard 3 months at temperatures above 75 degrees, more for temps below this margin. Until then, its best to proceed with caution. 
I approach all my tanks differently according to their cycle:
I have a discus tank that has been running continuously for 10 years. I know that because it has such a well-established bio-filter, I can wash my mechanical cartridge in tap water every 2 weeks without a blip in its cycle. ~ wouldn't recommend this on a newly established bio-filter.
My 180 is 2 years old; but, the bio-load is heavier. With this tank I have 2 - FX 6 filters. I clean one filter every 2 months- completely- outside hosing it down: mechanical and biological. After cleaning I am cautious as the other filter reseeds the cleaned one- doing a water change of 50% on the 3rd and 6th day. ~ This method of cleaning and maintenance of the filters was not haphazard: I tested my water parameters and adjusted accordingly. 
I have 2 -30 gallon tanks that have been established in the last year. I am much more careful with their cleaning. The mechanical consists of four sponges- I clean 2 every 2 weeks. 
There is much more to the nitrogen cycle than a 0/0/5-20 reading.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

There is more bacteria living on surfaces (substrate, hardscape, biomedia) than in filter water. It is best to take a few pieces of biomedia or a small bag of biomedia placed in a mature filter for a week then put in a new tank to jump start the cycle. It works much faster than doing a fishless cycle (on the order of a week or two) instead of a month or three. 
Does filter water with mulm contain bacteria? (Probably yes but not in as high concentrations as on the surface of biomedia).

Now when you talk about 'Instant Cycling' that is a very subjective dicussion. To me cycle is done when your BB in your tank can process more Ammonia than you are ever introducing into the tank so that you never test the presence of Ammonia or Nitrite, other people have different definitions.

One thing is certain adding filter water and Mulm to your new filter if that is all you have is a good idea, but any mature filter(months) should be able to handle the removal of 1/4 of the biomedia to place in a new filter which IMO would be faster and more efficient.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Discusluv said:


> The notion of an "instant-cycle" with _established media_ is so misleading- especially for those new to aquarium keeping- who are still unfamiliar with the nitrogen cycle. I wish it would go back where it came from......



It came from professionals with decades of experience in tropical fishkeeping, breeding, and selling. In the simplest terms 'Instant cycle' is nothing more than providing sufficient beneficial biology in a new tank to deal with the ammonia generated by a limited initial bio-load (diluted by the fresh, pure water in a new setup and augmented by plants). 

It's so logical it's surprising to me that the merit is questioned. :frown2:


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> There is more bacteria living on surfaces (substrate, hardscape, biomedia) than in filter water. It is best to take a few pieces of biomedia or a small bag of biomedia placed in a mature filter for a week then put in a new tank to jump start the cycle. It works much faster than doing a fishless cycle (on the order of a week or two) instead of a month or three.
> Does filter water with mulm contain bacteria? (Probably yes but not in as high concentrations as on the surface of biomedia).
> 
> Now when you talk about 'Instant Cycling' that is a very subjective dicussion. To me cycle is done when your BB in your tank can process more Ammonia than you are ever introducing into the tank so that you never test the presence of Ammonia or Nitrite, other people have different definitions.
> ...


 I have always heard the opposite, that there is more beneficial bacteria in and around the filter- where the oxygen is highest. 



This:


> _"The good bacteria can live on any surface in the aquarium. However, like all organisms ever, they concentrate their populations where their limiting factors are best met. In an aquarium the two things that are the most limited for the bacteria are food and oxygen. Filters provide flow which provides food and oxygen. The surface area of the biomedia provides a surface for the bacteria to grow on where they can sit and allow the oxygen and food to come to them. At the end of the day it is not the biomedia itself that is anything magical, it is nothing more than surface area per volume. The bacteria are happy to grow on any surface, but they do not simply spread out evenly throughout the aquarium. Although any surface area in the tank (decor, glass, substrate, etc.) are otherwise perfectly acceptable, they do not have the same flow as the filter and therefore will not house significant colonies of bacteria."_
> 
> Link with further information on filter/substrate bacteria_:_
> 
> ...


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

AbbeysDad said:


> It came from professionals with decades of experience in tropical fishkeeping, breeding, and selling. In the simplest terms 'Instant cycle' is nothing more than providing sufficient beneficial biology in a new tank to deal with the ammonia generated by a limited initial bio-load (diluted by the fresh, pure water in a new setup and augmented by plants).
> 
> It's so logical it's surprising to me that the merit is questioned. :frown2:


 The problem is that newcomers take the "Insta-cycle" term literally. That they just put in the cycled media and their tanks are instantly cycled. See how that term can be misconstrued by a person new to the hobby with little understanding of the nitrifying process. 

It also gives the impression ( to the newcomer) that all tanks are the same in this process with cycled media- which is certainly not true. The last tanks I cycled, 2 -30 gallons, I used cycled media from my tank that has been established for many years and it still took 2 weeks. My 180 took 9 days. 

Hardly an instant cycle.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

Here I'm forced to agree with cl3537. In most aquariums the surface area the filter can house is tiny compared to the tank substrate, not to mention hardscape, surfaces and in our case all the plants. The only exception might be if your using a large canister on a small nano. 

There were many times over the years where I did a water change and forget to plug the filter back in sometimes for days. All the bb was dead and the tank did not cycle. Trying removing all of your substrate and see what happens 

Once the tank matures the filter is primarily a flow device. I usuallly fill it with filter foam for mechanical filtration and have very little biomedia in it.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Another thing to consider, which this article addresses, is that surface area is _only one_ of the factors that must be met in order to harbor the growth of nitrifying bacteria. If the other two aspects are not sufficiently met, food and oxygen, then surface area alone will not be enough to sustain the bacteria in high numbers. Certainly, there is nitrifying bacteria throughout the aquarium; but, the larger percentage of bacteria is in the filter itself.

The author explains this:


> _Surface area doesn’t equal bacteria. Bacteria need much more than surface area to survive, thrive, and establish colonies. Many people focus only on surface area, which is the most ample resource bacteria have, there is no reason at all to think this alone would be a determining factor to where they live. They will grow where their most limited resources are found. Those resources are oxygen and food, both provided by flow, which in any tank is highest in the filter._
> 
> In an established aquarium, one that is over 3 months, as @somewhatshocked explained earlier, you have a greater concentration of biofilm and aufwuchs ( microorganisms and crustaceans) that are also important to the maintenance of a healthy aquatic environment- offering alternative food source for shrimp, snails, fish, etc...
> 
> ...


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> I have always heard the opposite, that there is more beneficial bacteria in and around the filter- where the oxygen is highest.


You misunderstood my post entirely I'll rephrase. The best source is filter biomedia, second would be the filter sponges. Baceria live on surfaces, much less concentrated in the water column, that is why filter water/mulm is not the best choice nor is just old aquarium substrate for new filter seeding. 

Nobody goes around trying to test if driftwood has more bacteria on it than filter water that is a silly comparison both of those are not the best sources for cycling a new aquarium but both could be more beneficial than nothing.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

I actually misunderstood the post as well. Once a tank matures there is more BB in the tank itself between the substrate, plants, hardscape then there is in the actual filter in most cases as indicated in post #22


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> You misunderstood my post entirely I'll rephrase. The best source is filter biomedia, second would be the filter sponges. Baceria live on surfaces, much less concentrated in the water column, that is why filter water/mulm is not the best choice nor is just old aquarium substrate for new filter seeding.
> 
> Nobody goes around trying to test if driftwood has more bacteria on it than filter water that is a silly comparison both of those are not the best sources for cycling a new aquarium but both could be more beneficial than nothing.


Okay, I understand you now.


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> I have always heard the opposite, that there is more beneficial bacteria in and around the filter- where the oxygen is highest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

DaveKS said:


> Discusluv said:
> 
> 
> > I have always heard the opposite, that there is more beneficial bacteria in and around the filter- where the oxygen is highest.
> ...


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> DaveKS said:
> 
> 
> > I havent seen any documented evidence of this as you are describing. But, I have seen evidence of the opposite. I am willing to change my mind, of course. Have any corroborating evidence?
> ...


----------



## theDCpump (Jul 22, 2016)

AbbeysDad said:


> *If you have one or more established healthy tanks it makes no sense to setup a new tank with bottled ammonia and wait 6-8 weeks for a cycle to happen. *
> 
> There's absolutely nothing inhumane about properly seeding a new tank with beneficial biology, fast growing floating plants, and using common sense about stocking. I've done it many, many times and never lost a fish!
> 
> It's pointless to debate something that's been done successfully so many times.


Agreed.

I take a new tank, fill it with 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3rds old tank water from another tank that may be slightly cleaner or dirtier.
Next, add a few existing "seeded" sponges (of the many) from stacked foam media trays or compartments, and lastly add new fresh treated water I mixed from a 55gal (tap+declor).

-Partial/percentage used sponge from old filter.
-new water +old water ratio.
-add bio starter just to be sure.
-sometimes no Quick start bio-in-a-bottle is needed at all. A bit can help though.



We can even start the newer filter on a small tote and get it running off to the side with dirty water and QuickBio products.
This is just to get a mock-up running with the new filter while you keep working.
It all depend if it is a 10gal or 100gal.
Time.

I'd personally let a friend run his new filter with my dirty water change water, after the heavy stuff settles as well as no fish yet.
-run my terd water for a day or so on the new tank, change that water and filter after the terd water clears, add Quickbio if desired.

So many methods.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Are you just trying to troll people and be contrary for the purpose of being contrary? If so, please don't. No one here wants that.

I haven't found anyone in this thread suggesting that tanks should be started without established filter media. If you've got it, obviously, use it.

But what people, myself included, *are* saying? That it's absolutely 100% better to allow a tank to grow and get established *if you have the opportunity to do so.* It's just common sense (because it's established at this point in the hobby) that critters are going to do better in a tank that is well-established over something that was just thrown together the same day. It's literal science - it takes time for beneficial bacteria to build and grow across all the surfaces in a tank. And, like it or not, most tanks in this hobby are unique so they're not going to grow at the same pace.

It's inhumane to throw together a tank and then plop in some sensitive shrimp or other detrivores that rely upon a healthy layer of biofilm. The microfauna that develop in a tank that's had time to mature for several weeks are key to their health and happiness. If you're keeping something like filter-feeders? That'd be abusive and cruel. So, no, you can't just toss everything into a fresh tank like it's no big deal. Hardy fish? Okay, have at it. But it's still not ideal if you know better and have the means to wait. People used to "cycle" a tank by buying feeder fish and allowing them to burn to death as ammonia processed in a tank. It works but people know better now.

You can do what you like with your tanks. Everyone can. But people are also capable of doing what's ideal if they put in some research and effort. Thankfully, a super-majority of forum users allow their tanks to mature when they can.

What you're suggesting people do is **ideal** in an emergency, though. I've had to throw together a bunch of stuff in a bucket during tank damage disasters. Had to do it recently when some C. habrosus arrived a month before they were supposed to. Have done something similar with moving cross-country a few times. It's helpful. But I'm not doing it in my day-to-day tanking if I have the opportunity to try to make things better.



AbbeysDad said:


> If you have one or more established healthy tanks it makes no sense to setup a new tank with bottled ammonia and wait 6-8 weeks for a cycle to happen.
> 
> There's absolutely nothing inhumane about properly seeding a new tank with beneficial biology, fast growing floating plants, and using common sense about stocking. I've done it many, many times and never lost a fish!
> 
> It's pointless to debate something that's been done successfully so many times.


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

I've had to grow bacteria in a bucket when my bio media failed. Yes, I did use ammonia, no fish were harmed as it was in a bucket that contained a filter, heater and a air stone. Fast forward to a few years later, I still have that media that was cycled in a bucket. 

As for the theory that a person can have a fully established tank by simply using dirty filter media, no. It helps, but bacteria also need to be fed which many people seem to forget. They will use something like Dr.Tim's, then leave the tank for weeks while doing nothing in terms of 'feeding' so the tank needs to be recycled as starving bacteria die.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

somewhatshocked said:


> Are you just trying to troll people and be contrary for the purpose of being contrary? If so, please don't. No one here wants that.


I merely answered the OP's question based on my 50+ years in the hobby. But further, I've read several misconceptions posted here.
First, let me 'say' I did not speak of an established tank as that in fact does take 3-6 months. However, a 'cycled' tank is merely a tank that has sufficient nitrosomonas and nitrospira (formerly thought to be nitrobacter) bacteria to process ammonia into nitrites and nitrites into nitrates. This can be accomplished quickly in a new tank with existing bacteria laden media. I've done it repeatedly over the years.

------
I think there is a misconception about bio-media. Ceramics, rocks, and plastic balls are a marketing cash cow for many companies...and some have become convinced that these are the best or only platforms for BB.
In fact, bio-sponge material is every bit as good or better. This can be evidenced by entire large fishrooms that use air driven sponge filters often in bare bottom tanks. AND the Aquaripure denitrate filter that uses 3 types of different density bio-foam sponge material. Some have been conditioned to think that sponge is merely for mechanical filtration. However, bio sponge offers a huge amount of surface area to serve as a BB platform. After years of testing, my filters are filled with bio-sponge material.
------ @cl3537 spoke of filter water and someone else mentioned tank water. I never mentioned using polluted water to start a new tank. I spoke of seeding the new tank/filter by releasing bacteria from established bio-sponge material.
------
A discussion/debate has ensued regarding where BB is most likely to reside, tank or filter. The real answer is both with some exception. First, it's obvious that BB needs food. O2, and surface area. The notion that there's more O2 in a filter is of course incorrect as the entire FW aquarium is a highly oxygenated environment. Next is surface area for the BB to populate. This is any 'hard' surface so that includes filter media AND substrate and decor. So where is most? Well, in a bare bottom tank (as in most of my grow out tanks), I'd say the filter. But in my tanks with substrate and plants, I'd say there's a split.
Although the filter is a good spot as food is readily 'delivered' it has been written that the fast filter flow rates may reduce/inhibit the BB's ability to process ammonia and nitrite. So with gentle circulation and huge surface areas, perhaps the substrate/decor wins the contest - who can say.
------
So, the 'cycled' tank is merely a tank that has sufficient BB (and/or growing plants) to process the ammonia generated by the bio-load. This can take 6-8 weeks or be done very quickly. An established tank is another matter.
------
I regret that my post(s) were interpreted by you as you implied as it was certainly not my intention.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

AbbeysDad said:


> I merely answered the OP's question based on my 50+ years in the hobby. But further, I've read several misconceptions posted here.
> First, let me 'say' I did not speak of an established tank as that in fact does take 3-6 months. However, a 'cycled' tank is merely a tank that has sufficient nitrosomonas and nitrospira (formerly thought to be nitrobacter) bacteria to process ammonia into nitrites and nitrites into nitrates. This can be accomplished quickly in a new tank with existing bacteria laden media. I've done it repeatedly over the years.
> 
> ------
> ...


Well stated and we are in agreement on all details in this post particularly those I bolded. The only place where I may want clarification is that the sponge itself is a great source for growing BB no doubt but I am not as certain that rinsing out that sponge into a new filter is nearly as effective as cutting it in half and placing the sponge itself into a new filter. When I rinse my sponges with existing tank water, the technique assumes that the majority of the BB stays in on the sponge and not in the waste water which is thrown away.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

somewhatshocked said:


> I haven't found anyone in this thread suggesting that tanks should be started without established filter media. If you've got it, obviously, use it.
> 
> But what people, myself included, *are* saying? That it's absolutely 100% better to allow a tank to grow and get established *if you have the opportunity to do so.*


This issue and argument comes down to defining a time frame upon which it is safe to introduce livestock into a new aqaurium.
I have to agree with @AbbeysDad I am not sure what the issue in his arguments are?

With a reasonably planted tank(not even necessary) and seeded media from a bottle or previous filter or both, the 'cycle' can be complete in as little as a week(maybe less).

Once the tank is 'cycled', as in you can't test Ammonia or Nitrites and you can process a reasonable amount of Ammonia(0.5 - 2ppm) in 12 hours or less, I see no credible research to support further delay adding livestock for the tank to be 'cycled and mature'. In shrimp keeping as an extra precaution I might say for more sensitive species waiting at least a month would be more prudent but in general 'cycled' is good enough for most fauna especially in a heavily planted tank.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

AbbeysDad said:


> A discussion/debate has ensued regarding where BB is most likely to reside, tank or filter. The real answer is both with some exception. First, it's obvious that BB needs food. O2, and surface area. The notion that there's more O2 in a filter is of course incorrect as the entire FW aquarium is a highly oxygenated environment. Next is surface area for the BB to populate. This is any 'hard' surface so that includes filter media AND substrate and decor. So where is most? Well, in a bare bottom tank (as in most of my grow out tanks), I'd say the filter. But in my tanks with substrate and plants, I'd say there's a split.
> Although the filter is a good spot as food is readily 'delivered' it has been written that the fast filter flow rates may reduce/inhibit the BB's ability to process ammonia and nitrite. So with gentle circulation and huge surface areas, perhaps the substrate/decor wins the contest - who can say.
> ------



Thank you for your personal opinion on the question of beneficial bacteria and where it resides. No question that it resides in substrate and decor, but as these articles demonstrate, the science tells us the filter is the site where it predominantly resides in the greatest numbers. The mistake people make is assuming that one criteria: whether it be surface area, oxygen, or food is the most important- more than the other two. But, as these articles describe, all three are equally important. 

Now, like I said, if there is new evidence that these determinations are no longer valid, by all means provide me this documentation. I would be very interested in reading them.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> Thank you for your personal opinion on the question of beneficial bacteria and where it resides. No question that it resides in substrate and decor, but as these articles demonstrate, the science tells us the filter is the site where it predominantly resides in the greatest numbers. The mistake people make is assuming that one criteria: whether it be surface area, oxygen, or food is the most important- more than the other two. But, as these articles describe, all three are equally important.
> 
> Now, like I said, if there is new evidence that these determinations are no longer valid, by all means provide me this documentation. I would be very interested in reading them.


*What articles?*

I am not disagreeing with you but I haven't got the references to back it up.

Is there an article which tests substrate, hardscape, filter water, filter biomedia and rank them?
I have never seen such an article if you have seen one please provide a link.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> *What articles?*
> 
> I am not disagreeing with you but I haven't got the references to back it up.
> 
> ...


 Oh- did you think this was addressed to you? It is not.

Edit: No, I went back and looked. Its not addressed to you- why are you responding?


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> Oh- did you think this was addressed to you? It is not.
> 
> Edit: No, I went back and looked. Its not addressed to you- why are you responding?


If there is definitive proof that shows that higher concentrations of bacteria are in the filter versus hardscape I'm interested in reading it, I have assumed that point based on ammonia being cycled more readily through water flow in the filter and lack of light being a more hospitable environment for bacteria growth, but I haven't seen definitive proof that is why I asked.

If most bb resides in the filter why is it so important for biofilm, bacteria, bioorganisms to colonize the subtrate and hardscape before a tank is considered 'mature cycled'? (I don't buy into that concept completely except for if biofilm is a necessary food source but have an open mind about it)

I'll duck out of the way and keep out of this in future as it seems to invoke personal attacks(not sure why) and I don't want any hostility directed at me, but I am definitely interested in increasing my knowledge in this area. I added Stability all over my hardscape on the advice of an accomplished aquascaper to avoid algae when I established my tank but I am not convinced on the Science on doing so is very robust.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> If there is definitive proof that shows that higher concentrations of bacteria are in the filter versus hardscape I'm interested in reading it, I have assumed that point based on what I read but I haven't seen definitive proof that is why I asked.
> 
> If most bb resides in the filter why is it so important for biofilm, bacteria, bioorganisms to colonize the subtrate and hardscape before a tank is considered 'mature'? (I don't buy into that concept but have an open mind about it)
> 
> I'll duck out of the way and keep out of this in future as it seems to invoke personal attacks(not sure why) and I don't want any hostility directed at me, but I am definitely interested in increasing my knowledge in this area.


Two articles were already linked.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Discusluv said:


> Thank you for your personal opinion on the question of beneficial bacteria and where it resides. No question that it resides in substrate and decor, but as these articles demonstrate, the science tells us the filter is the site where it predominantly resides in the greatest numbers.....


And I have read many 'articles' that suggest there is far more biology in the substrate than in any filter. We have to remember that articles represent the opinion of the author often based on belief, observation, or interpretation of data. Even in scientific studies, new studies often contradict older ones. It is unlikely that there is any real objective evidence or data that has actually measured BB in filters vs. substrate let alone in the thousands of filter/substrate permutations.

@cl3537 - Regarding "_I may want clarification is that the sponge itself is a great source for growing BB no doubt but I am not as certain that rinsing out that sponge into a new filter is nearly as effective as cutting it in half and placing the sponge itself into a new filter. When I rinse my sponges with existing tank water, the technique assumes that the majority of the BB stays in on the sponge and not in the waste water which is thrown away_"
Either method works. When a bio-sponge is "cleaned" in the new tank, not all of the BB is removed, but enough to seed the new filter. One could make a case that adding a sponge from an established tank/filter also works as would moving an established filter between tanks.
------
Just as importantly, we need to consider the additional effects of fast growing plants, a low(er) bio-load, and the dilution factor of a few fish in a large body of pure fresh water. That poor ammonia just doesn't stand a chance.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Links to those articles “you have read”?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveKS (Apr 2, 2019)

cl3537 said:


> You misunderstood my post entirely I'll rephrase. The best source is filter biomedia, second would be the filter sponges. Baceria live on surfaces, much less concentrated in the water column, that is why filter water/mulm is not the best choice nor is just old aquarium substrate for new filter seeding.
> 
> Nobody goes around trying to test if driftwood has more bacteria on it than filter water that is a silly comparison both of those are not the best sources for cycling a new aquarium but both could be more beneficial than nothing.


To me if your assuming that the surface of a piece of decaying plant matter (mulm) is not a suitable surface that bacteria will readily populate I will say that you are mistaken. It’s the home base/buffet line for every form of bacteria Mother Nature has, not just ones involving nit cycle but carbon, phosphorus and sulfur cycles as well as reduction of any of the other multitude of elements/compounds locked up in plant fiber that it used to grow that leaf/stem. There are also beneficial fungus strains residing in mulm.

My little mulm bomb experiment is perfect example. It’s stocked with betta, 5 neons, 3 ember tetras and colony of pink ramshorn. Note the thick .25” layer of mulm on top of substrate that most would consider filthy. I haven’t changed water or cleaned filter pads in over a month and a half. There has never been any form of undesirable algae growth anywhere except for light dust algae on glass. All I do is top off with distilled water with light dosing of thrive, feed fish and thin out plants weekly. Fish are vibrant and super healthy. It’s pretty much self sustaining except for me thinning out plants. Most all the carbon, nit, phos etc needed by plants is provided by mulm/substrate bed, my light fert dosing takes care of rest. All there is in Aquaclear 20 is it’s coarse foam which I intentionally turned up on end so about 10% water bypasses it, there is a sock of double layer window screen around filter intake to keep bigger pieces of debris in the tank till mulm layer/bacteria breaks them down. All in a 6gal of water with a ramped 12hr light cycle. There’s way more to nature’s grand plan than hard surfaces for nitrifying bacteria to populate.

I’ll be adding 3 more ember tetra and another neon for a even dozen as soon as they get some more in. This fish load didn’t even make this little tank blink.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Discusluv said:


> Links to those articles “you have read”?


I do not have links to items I've read over the last 30-40 years. 

I would point out to you the *flawed logic in the one article you linked*...

The author indicated one case where he moved an established filter to a new tank. In another case, he replaced all of the substrate and decor. In both cases there was no cycle upset. Based on this he concluded that ALL of the BB resides in the filter. WRONG assumption. I did not see where he put a new filter on an established tank!
All I can conclude from the article is that there is BB in the filter...but we always knew that. 
It was quite a stretch to conclude that BB did not exist anywhere else.

Like I said, articles are written by people with beliefs and opinions. The reader must closely evaluate the merits of any of their conclusions.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

AbbeysDad said:


> I do not have links to items I've read over the last 30-40 years.
> 
> I would point out to you the *flawed logic in the one article you linked*...
> 
> ...


Not even one article in your 30-40 years of reading? Incredible. 

Let me give you a hint so you can locate your articles: Google Scholar. Accessible PDF's. 
Here you go: 88 articles

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Link&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=8702281

Yeah, Ive heard the anti-intellectual, anti-scientific "argument" many times... _ad nauseum ._
Its the new way of the world isn't it? 

It always occurs when the anecdotal evidence cannot be corroborated.


----------



## AbbeysDad (Apr 13, 2016)

Discusluv said:


> Not even one article in your 30-40 years of reading? Incredible.
> 
> Let me give you a hint so you can locate your articles: Google Scholar. Accessible PDF's.
> Here you go: 88 articles
> ...


Clearly any further discussion at least with you is pointless.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> Two articles were already linked.


Those are 'web articles' not peer reviewed and have very low credibility and impact.

I should never have entered this thread, I missed the part about squeezing sponges into a tank filter and 'instant cycle' then adding fish an hour later. I don't agree with that at all.

But I also don't agree with arguing over which Bacteria levels are higher when neither of you can find a paper which actually measures Bacteria counts in various tanks, conditions, and locations.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> Those are 'web articles' not peer reviewed and have very low credibility and impact.
> 
> I should never have entered this thread, I missed the part about squeezing sponges into a tank filter and 'instant cycle' then adding fish an hour later. I don't agree with that at all.
> 
> But I also don't agree with arguing over which Bacteria levels are higher when neither of you can find a paper which actually measures Bacteria counts in various tanks, conditions, and locations.


 What are you talking about not peer reviewed? Your kidding right? Nice try. 

This one article in itself has 39 references.
If you dont have something to add to the conversation then move on. 

https://aem.asm.org/content/aem/62/8/2888.full.pdf


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> What are you talking about not peer reviewed? Your kidding right? Nice try.
> 
> This one article in itself has 39 references.
> If you dont have something to add to the conversation then move on.
> ...


While that may be an interesting article to you, I see nothing in that paper that supports the argument that more bacteria is in the filter than on hardscape. Not interested in searching for a needle in a haystack in references that would be your job.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> While that may be an interesting article to you, I see nothing in that paper that supports your argument that more bacteria is in the filter than on substrate do you?
> 
> Bump:
> 
> While that may be an interesting article to you, I see nothing in that paper that supports your argument that more bacteria is in the filter than on substrate do you?


 This is an example of a peer-reviewed article within this database. 

The one that you said was not viable.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> This is an example of a peer-reviewed article within this database.
> 
> The one that you said was not viable.


I am first author on three peer reviewed published articles each with about 100 references. I think I can safely say I understand how to do a literature search and how peer review works.

What I don't understand is why are you linking to random papers and searches that provide no support for your argument. The honus would be on you to find a reference if you are so passionate about your position. While I generally think you are correct I can't prove it and I suspect neither can you at this point.

This article might have proof:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00203-016-1334-1

I'll see if my friend can pull this article for me for free.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> I am first author on three peer reviewed published articles each with about 100 references. I think I can safely say I understand how to do a literature search and how peer review works.
> 
> What I don't understand is why are you linking to random papers and searches that provide no support for your argument.


 These are all peer -reviewed papers in the database- your attempts at self-importance do not impress me. 

Yawn- who cares about your academic status. 

The last link was a generalized link strictly because you said the papers in the database were not peer-reviewed. I demonstrated they are. That was the goal- not an exact match in content. 



You dont read posts do you?
If you looked at the context it might help you. Context is important. As an academic Im surprised at your lack of reading comprehension and inability to see the context in which posts are made. Return to the post where I included the database. Read carefully. It is a demonstration of how one can assess databases_ Google scholar. I then linked articles under "nitrification in the aquarium." This to is a demonstration.

Bump:


cl3537 said:


> I am first author on three peer reviewed published articles each with about 100 references. I think I can safely say I understand how to do a literature search and how peer review works.
> 
> What I don't understand is why are you linking to random papers and searches that provide no support for your argument. The honus would be on you to find a reference if you are so passionate about your position. While I generally think you are correct I can't prove it and I suspect neither can you at this point.
> 
> ...


If you are an academic, why do you not have access to databases. Is it that you are not being truthful? Wouldnt be the first time someone on the internet gave themselves an academic status that they didn't deserve.


----------



## livebearerlove (Aug 20, 2013)

Escalating should not be a privilege and not taken lightly as it speaks to character. 
Another thread gone wrong.


----------



## Pocho (Dec 3, 2018)

this back and forth cracks me up. It was a great fathers day read.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> These are all peer -reviewed papers in the database- your attempts at self-importance do not impress me.


If you had the proof you would have linked the actual article and copy pasted the text proving the nitrification happens predominantly in the filter. You didn't do that, instead you are just being rude and replying with personal attacks.



Discusluv said:


> Two articles were already linked.





cl3537 said:


> Those are 'web articles' not peer reviewed and have very low credibility


The two 'articles' you stated were linked already do not prove your point. You linked to one in Post #20 and Post #23 neither are scientific articles they are more like blog posts and neither speak to your claim that nitrification happens predominantly in the filter.




> If you are an academic, why do you not have access to databases.


It isn't access to the databases I need it is access to the full text which I don't have anymore as I am not a career academic.

*You can look up J. Geller McGill on researchgate to see my published papers I submitted as a student*. You will notice my screename references the papers.

I would have to ask a Professor friend to pull the full text but this hardly seems worth it at this point as you called me a lier.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

And you likewise have been rude and condescending. You feel you have a right to it and others are not to respond in kind. 
Must have something to do with that sense of self-importance.

You can discount the evidence Ive provided- that's fine. But, maybe it would prove more productive to actually concentrate on providing evidence to strengthen your own position. So far, it has lacked any substance.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Okay, now I'm responding as a moderator and not a hobbyist:

Enough with the trolling, condescension and general jackassery. 

I will not clean this thread up again.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> You can discount the evidence Ive provided- that's fine.



This is what you linked to:

https://sciworthy.com/new-study-elaborates-on-what-aquarium-owners-already-know/

They just poorly paraphrased this article:

-------------------------------------------------------
Archives of Microbiology

May 2017, Volume 199, Issue 4, pp 613–620 | Cite as

Microbial diversity in different compartments of an aquaponics system
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I pulled the paper and here is the relevant paragraph from results and discussion.

"_The biofilter sample contained large numbers of Nitrospira (3.9% of total community) that were found only in low numbers in the periphyton or the plant roots. *On the other hand, only small percentages of Nitrosomonadales (0.64%) and Nitrobacter (0.11%) were found in the same samples* (Table[censored]S3). Whereas the second group of organisms are commonly tested for in aquaponics systems and mainly held responsible for nitrification (Rurangwa and Verdegem 2015; Zou et[censored]al. 2016a), Nitrospira has only recently been described as total nitrifier (Daims et[censored]al. 2015), being able to directly convert ammonium to nitrate in the system. The dominance of Nitrospira is thus a novelty in such systems and might be correlated with a difference in the basic setup of the aquaponics system (Graber et[censored]al. 2014).* It must be noted that the increased presence does not necessarily correlate to a larger activity of these organisms in the system, as the metabolic activities were not measured.* *The periphyton contained larger numbers of the putative denitrifiers Dokdonella and Thermomonas* (Tian et[censored]al. 2015) than on plant roots or in the biofilter (Table[censored]S3). This potential of denitrification would partially explain the loss of nitrogen in the system that is only possible by measurement of the complete nutrient balance (Graber et[censored]al. 2014; Schmautz 2015). _"

These results are inconclusive. Nitrospira is not handling the majority of the ammonia load it mainly oxidizes nitrite. There are putative nitrifiers in the periphyton(substrate and hardscape) that are likely to contribute but they reduce Ammonia to Nitrogen gas. This topic is complex and a definitive answer will likely not be readily available.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

This is the problem when you link to articles that are outside the hobby. For example Aquaponic systems don't normally have a substrate. So any conclusions are completely irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

I have seen this subject passionately argued for as long as I've been on the internet but I've never understood the certainty by which it's debated on either side. If you consider the myriad of different filters used in the hobby, the various medias used therein, differing flow rates, along with the endless substrate choices available and depths of these, etc., I don't see how anyone can definitively say where most of the BB reside in every system. And planted aquariums add another layer to this. I'm sure many of us have had a filter die on a planted tank. In my experience these systems tend not to miss a beat from a long week (or more) without filtration. On a bare bottom fry tank a filter stoppage can cause a wipe out within hours. This could lead some to opposite conclusions, but the fact is the variables on these systems aren't remotely the same. 

We tend to believe what we are told until we see evidence to the contrary. When I got into this hobby back in the days of Metaframe tanks, it was said that "the good bacteria live in your filter" and I took it at face value. Some would even recommend two smaller filters rather than one large one so you wouldn't have to change out cartridges at the same time. As years went by, it became apparent that old tanks are much more forgiving than new ones. In fact, it seemed to be the biggest determining factor. Fast forward to the early days of pressurized CO2 and everyone told us not to have surface agitation or you'd off-gas the CO2 you were trying to inject. I'd panic if evaporation made a spraybar break the water surface. Now I'm seeing people using pressurized CO2 with sumps. Just using that aside to illustrate that conventional wisdom, especially when it intuitively makes sense often goes unchallenged for a long time. 

I don't really have a strong opinion on where "most" of the BB lives in a hypothetical aquarium. I tend to think that the newer the system is, the less you have outside of the filter and the more plants you have, the less it even matters.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> We tend to believe what we are told until we see evidence to the contrary.


Aquarium articles are not academic level publication worthy, they don't require the same level of scrutiny or peer review, they dumb things down, use simpler language and provide less robust proof, complications, and details. If you write something wrong or misleading it is doubtful anyone will mention it in marketing or web literature. Topics that are many fine shades of gray are simplified to black or white for mass consumption.

Some very simple minded (Anti Science) people find comfort in them and are blissfully unaware of the academic research, science, details, and complications behind the pillars of aquarium advice. Almost everything professed here either came from academic research or repurposing chemicals or equipment from other uses.

Tom Barr's EI was not a novel idea, it wasn't ground breaking, it was built on top of foundations of other dosing systems at the time (like PMDD) and based on reading and building upon previous academic research.

The very best in this hobby (a few examples: Tom Barr, Vin Kutty, Dennis Wong) to name a few embrace Science and Academic literature and are able to move this hobby forward in its understanding and results by keeping on top of current academic advances.

Unfortunately there will always be those who are stuck with very rigid limiting beleifs and who are unable to see any other way of doing things or learning, and much like the Luddites they will largely be ignored or change their views slowly over time.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> Aquarium articles are not academic level publication worthy, they don't require the same level of scrutiny or peer review, they dumb things down, use simpler language and provide less robust proof, complications, and details. If you write something wrong or misleading it is doubtful anyone will mention it in marketing or web literature. Topics that are many fine shades of gray are simplified to black or white for mass consumption.
> 
> Some very simple minded (Anti Science) people find comfort in them and are blissfully unaware of the academic research, science, details, and complications behind the pillars of aquarium advice. Almost everything professed here either came from academic research or repurposing chemicals or equipment from other uses.
> 
> ...


 What is interesting here is that you have identified "all my failures" to supply adequate information to confirm my assertions. Yet, still, have not given any adequate evidence to refute it. In fact, your defense has been entirely centered on attempting to demonstrate my "lack of knowledge" in relation to your "abundance". The irony in this is clear- its very easy to attack the ideas of others when you provide no details of your own.


----------



## Asteroid (Jul 26, 2018)

cl3537 said:


> ...
> The very best in this hobby (a few examples: Tom Barr, Vin Kutty, Dennis Wong) to name a few embrace Science and Academic literature and are able to move this hobby forward in its understanding and results by keeping on top of current academic advances.
> 
> Unfortunately there will always be those who are stuck with very rigid limiting beleifs and who are unable to see any other way of doing things or learning, and much like the Luddites they will largely be ignored or change their views slowly over time.


If one finds success they will not change their technique, just because a Barr, Kutty and Wong say something. There are many ways to do things in this hobby. Even Barr will tell you "you need not a PhD to be a good farmer or aquascaper. Elbow grease likely will serve you better"

Stop looking for articles/studies that are peer reviewed and took place in nature or at an aquaponics farm, etc. There are very few if any that are directly applicable to the planted fish tank hobby. Learn by doing it for yourself and don't stand on the shoulders of other people.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef (Feb 10, 2008)

@Cl5357 I feel like you are being argumentative even though we are in general agreement. Perhaps the condescending final paragraph is just leaving me with that taste though. Tone is difficult to judge through the written word and I've been guilty of coming across as callous myself so will try to word this thoughtfully.

The amount of available information has probably increased a thousandfold in the 40ish years since I got my first aquarium. In the beginning advancements were made by large leaps forward. Aerating and heating water were surely game changers of their time. It's doubtful that any new discoveries will will affect aquarium keeping at that level but that does not mean they are unimportant. Today anyone entering our hobby or starting an aquarium with new species has a tremendous amount of information literally at their fingertips. I do not discount the many scientists and researchers and the contributions they have made -I doubt a hobbyist in his basement figured out the nitrogen cycle or that the pH scale is logarithmic. But ours is a hobby where discoveries are not limited to those who hold a PhD. Anyone who keeps aquariums has the potential of contributing something valuable to the community. Many, many first breeding of species in captivity happens in private homes, not zoos and public aquariums. Changes in design to our filters, heaters, and lighting have come largely from the clamoring of hobbyists who wanted a better mousetrap. None of this makes academic publications less important, I simply think that scientific researcher's interests do not always align with ours. Even though we benefit tremendously from their work, some of the questions we have will never be asked outside of the private sector. 

I'll end it here at risk of rambling. To the subject at hand, bacteria live in our aquariums and there's no ratio for what percentage reside here or there in every single system. Assuming both are healthy, newly set up tanks are not as stable as old ones. Seeding speeds things up but is not instant. I think a lot of us could stand to put the caresheets, papers and books down for a few days and listen to the fish, inverts and plants and maybe try to rediscover the innate inquisitiveness that drew us to the hobby in the first place. And I'll include myself in that group.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> @Cl5357 I feel like you are being argumentative even though we are in general agreement. Perhaps the condescending final paragraph is just leaving me with that taste though. Tone is difficult to judge through the written word and I've been guilty of coming across as callous myself so will try to word this thoughtfully.
> 
> The amount of available information has probably increased a thousandfold in the 40ish years since I got my first aquarium. In the beginning advancements were made by large leaps forward. Aerating and heating water were surely game changers of their time. It's doubtful that any new discoveries will will affect aquarium keeping at that level but that does not mean they are unimportant. Today anyone entering our hobby or starting an aquarium with new species has a tremendous amount of information literally at their fingertips. I do not discount the many scientists and researchers and the contributions they have made -I doubt a hobbyist in his basement figured out the nitrogen cycle or that the pH scale is logarithmic. But ours is a hobby where discoveries are not limited to those who hold a PhD. Anyone who keeps aquariums has the potential of contributing something valuable to the community. Many, many first breeding of species in captivity happens in private homes, not zoos and public aquariums. Changes in design to our filters, heaters, and lighting have come largely from the clamoring of hobbyists who wanted a better mousetrap. None of this makes academic publications less important, I simply think that scientific researcher's interests do not always align with ours. Even though we benefit tremendously from their work, some of the questions we have will never be asked outside of the private sector.
> 
> I'll end it here at risk of rambling. To the subject at hand, bacteria live in our aquariums and there's no ratio for what percentage reside here or there in every single system. Assuming both are healthy, newly set up tanks are not as stable as old ones. Seeding speeds things up but is not instant. I think a lot of us could stand to put the caresheets, papers and books down for a few days and listen to the fish, inverts and plants and maybe try to rediscover the innate inquisitiveness that drew us to the hobby in the first place. And I'll include myself in that group.


 So well stated. 

Time to get off of this roller-coaster and back to my community of fish friends. :smile2:


----------



## Smooch (May 14, 2016)

Regardless of where 'the most' bacteria lives, I think the term 'instant cycle' needs to be better communicated. Far too many people are under the false impression that if they simply seed a filter that they can run out and overstock a tank. For those that are new to the hobby, it comes as a surprise when they start either losing fish or the fish start getting sick as their tank can't handle the new and often large bio load. Then when said people are told that they need to get on water changes ASAP, they often argue about how their tank is cycled. 

It isn't just hobbyists that toss this annoying phrase around as companies just as guilty of using it and probably make a decent profit from it. There is nothing wrong with stocking a tank lightly and gently for the first few months. There isn't a shortage of fish to buy....


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

Smooch said:


> Regardless of where 'the most' bacteria lives, I think the term 'instant cycle' needs to be better communicated. Far too many people are under the false impression that if they simply seed a filter that they can run out and overstock a tank. For those that are new to the hobby, it comes as a surprise when they start either losing fish or the fish start getting sick as their tank can't handle the new and often large bio load. Then when said people are told that they need to get on water changes ASAP, they often argue about how their tank is cycled.
> 
> It isn't just hobbyists that toss this annoying phrase around as companies just as guilty of using it and probably make a decent profit from it. There is nothing wrong with stocking a tank lightly and gently for the first few months. There isn't a shortage of fish to buy....


100% Agree.


----------



## cl3537 (Jan 28, 2019)

Discusluv said:


> you provide no details of your own.


You never replied to post #58 did you miss it or decide to ignore it? 
I pulled the full text for the source of the web article you linked as 'proof' for your position and spelled out exactly where the author discusses their inconclusive findings.

The topic is complex and at this point I find your position and AbbeysDad's position to both be equally valid as supported by the bolded parts of the paragraph in post #58.


----------



## Discusluv (Dec 24, 2017)

cl3537 said:


> You never replied to post #58 did you miss it or decide to ignore it?
> I pulled the full text for the source of the web article you linked as 'proof' for your position and spelled out exactly where the author discusses their inconclusive findings.
> 
> The topic is complex and at this point I find your position and AbbeysDad's position to both be equally valid as supported by the bolded parts of the paragraph in post #58.


 I am glad to see you came to your final conclusions. 

Its always good to put our doubts to rest through evidence. Whatever the means necessary to do that.


----------



## somewhatshocked (Aug 8, 2011)

Okay. I think the bickering from at least one member has gone on long enough. We have to lock this thread. We're leaving most of posts intact, however, so others can see who they should avoid.

Being an argumentative contrarian for the sake of being an argumentative contrarian is not welcome.


----------

