How do you maintain a cycled tank without adding ammonia?

[SlugSnorter]

I have a 55g tank that is completely cycled. It did 2PPM ammonia to 0 in 24hours. But my quarantine tank is taking a little longer than 24hours to 0 ammonia. So I will not be able to add fish to quarantine which also means I will not be adding fish to main tank for another month or so. I am also planning to add coraline algae into the main tank before the ugly phase. So I will not be able to add ammonia to maintain the cycle. Is there any other way I can maintain the cycle?

drop in a pinch of fish food

 

[brandon429]

One of the cooler facets of cycling is that we don’t even need bottle bac or feed to cycle the tank, all you need is four months and saltwater

time and water is the cycler not the additives, they only speed up wait times

to see an unassisted cycle logged, pull up Dr. Reefs bottle bac thread page 98 onward, see MSteven1’s four month verified cycle. This is why cycles can’t starve, they stay locked in as long as water remains

 

[Nemoreef]

By keeping it wet, nothing else needed

cycles cannot starve, natural inputs keep them alive exactly as if we fed them

cycles can’t die or starve in water.

Concern was, it will go dormant and when I move the fish from quarantine to main display, there will be another ammonia spike before these guys wake up.

 

[brandon429]

Won’t occur, and has never been documented in reefing
hope that helps

 

[brandon429]

All forms of bacterial doubt are made up on web forums, perpetuated by peers and initiated by bottle bac sellers


such as: brightwells bottle bac page stating to add it after water changes or tank cleaning to replenish lost bac= sales ploy

 

[Nemoreef]

Won’t occur, and has never been documented in reefing
hope that helps

This is correct. But from experience, the process of ammonia conversion slows down when there is no source and when you add new fish, it takes some time to catch up unless it's a really old tank.

 

[brandon429]

Show that in a link or article


theres literally no loss of power/ability even if you fallow 5 years


cycles can’t be starved in any way in open topped systems receiving home contaminations as microbial feed.

 

[Nemoreef]

Show that in a link or article

I think I read that on this forum plus my own experience with FW. Idea is, a new tank has low bacteria population working full time vs old tank has higher population working at a slower rate of conversion. So when you add new fish to a newly cycled tank, even if the bacteria is not dormant, it will take time to catch up. I will see if I can find the link to it.

 

[Nemoreef]

Show that in a link or article

Why can I add more fish to an older aquarium faster than a new aquarium?

Let’s say you have 2 identical aquariums set up one year apart. They both have the exact same number and size of fish and both have 0 ppm ammonia and nitrite. They must have the same amount of bacteria, right? Well, no. The older tank will have a larger population of bacteria that is processing ammonia at a slower rate. The younger tank will have a smaller population of bacteria with faster metabolisms. If you add new fish to the younger tank you need to wait for the population to increase which can take days. In an older aquarium, the bacteria only need to become more active which can happen in a matter of hours.

 

[brandon429]

If exists, the link will be someone guessing with an api kit and not from a published article using digital kits, thats key.

*what you’re writing is indeed what 99% of the populous agrees with so it’s not off the wall at all. Undoing the damage done by bottle bac sellers, the doubt they caused, is the rare part.

 

[brandon429]

Brew made that up, he’s a web forum poster. That’s not an article. I spend a lot of time correcting falsehoods in that post, it’s old cycling science.

Brew has never done one iota of cycling work using digital kits or he wouldn’t make stuff up like that. His thread is a rehashing of all collective web posts on cycling, but not from any formal source whatsoever.

 

[Nemoreef]

Brew made that up, he’s a web forum poster. That’s not an article. I spend a lot of time correcting falsehoods in that post, it’s old cycling science.

Brew has never done one iota of cycling work using digital kits or he wouldn’t make stuff up like that. His thread is a rehashing of all collective web posts on cycling, but not from any formal source whatsoever.

Oops!! Most of my planning is based off of articles from this forum. Ok this is good info. So I really don't have to do anything.

The conclusion from earlier posts were to add some easy soft corals and ghost feed. That way they can use up some nutrients, and I will have something beautiful to look at while waiting for fish.

 

[92Miata]

That is my last resort if I do not have any other option. My concern with ghost feeding is, now I am also supplying the nuisance algae with nutrients. My lights are off for the most part except the lunar cycle which I think is really cool.

Everything you want to keep needs nitrogen and phosphorus. You'll cause a lot more problems trying to starve things than not.

 

[Big Smelly fish]

Like mentioned ghost feed as if you already have fish in the tank

 

[Nemoreef]

Everything you want to keep needs nitrogen and phosphorus. You'll cause a lot more problems trying to starve things than not.

Corals use phosphate? Is Phosphorous same as phosphate? I read in many articles that it is better to maintain close to 0 phosphate but not 0.

 

[92Miata]

Corals use phosphate? Is Phosphorous same as phosphate? I read in many articles that it is better to maintain close to 0 phosphate but not 0.

EVERYTHING* needs phosphorus, and inorganic phosphate is the easiest way to get it for corals.


Almost everything uses Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) as an energy carrier - removing (ADP) and then adding back a phosphate ion to move around an electron. And everything* uses phosphorus as the backbone of it's DNA/RNA.


There's some research showing high phosphate slows growth in corals. There's conflicting research showing that given available nitrogen, it actually increases growth. We're not really sure. What we do know is that phosphorus deficiency kills corals rapidly. A little high is much safer than a little low.


If your lights aren't on, you don't need to be worrying about algae. And when your lights do go on, algae is much preferable to the things that survive in phosphate deficient environments (dinoflaggelates, etc)

(*we're aware of one bacteria in one lake in California that uses arsenic instead - although it much prefers phosphorus)

 

[Nemoreef]

EVERYTHING* needs phosphorus, and inorganic phosphate is the easiest way to get it for corals.


Almost everything uses Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) as an energy carrier - removing (ADP) and then adding back a phosphate ion to move around an electron. And everything* uses phosphorus as the backbone of it's DNA/RNA.


There's some research showing high phosphate slows growth in corals. There's conflicting research showing that given available nitrogen, it actually increases growth. We're not really sure. What we do know is that phosphorus deficiency kills corals rapidly. A little high is much safer than a little low.


If your lights aren't on, you don't need to be worrying about algae. And when your lights do go on, algae is much preferable to the things that survive in phosphate deficient environments (dinoflaggelates, etc)

(*we're aware of one bacteria in one lake in California that uses arsenic instead - although it much prefers phosphorus)

I do not have the lights on now. What is a good range of phosphate to maintain? I have a chart from BRS that has a range of 0.01 to 0.03[Ocean value of 0.005] and was planning to follow that.

I am also realizing that, searching the forum and reading answers is not enough. You have to start a thread for proper answers.

 

[homer1475]

Depending on the test kit used, that 0.01 to 0.03 may actually be 0(well within most test kits margin of error).

I have always shot for 0.1 to 0.2, but anything above 0 is good.

 

[Nemoreef]

Depending on the test kit used, that 0.01 to 0.03 may actually be 0(well within most test kits margin of error).

I have always shot for 0.1 to 0.2, but anything above 0 is good.

Current plan is to get Hanna checker for phosphate, Calcium and Magnesium[If needed]. Rest I am using Redsea.

 

[Nemoreef]

I'm not a big fan of adding supplements to a new tank but there is one product which is Aquaforest Life Source that may be able to naturally increase biodiversity in a new tank...it's mud harvested directly from Fiji near the reefs which is supposed to add biodiversity...

I added caribsea arag alive fiji pink sands. Will this add any biodiversity at all?