# Is this normal or did I stall my cycle?



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

So, tomorrow will be day 22 of my fishless cycle.

For the past week, I've dosed my tank (every other day or so), so that it reaches 4ppm of ammonia. By the next day, it will be at about 1.5 ppm ammonia, 1 ppm Nitrite and 10 ppm Nitrate. So, then I re-dose and bring it back up to 4ppm ammonia. The next day it is back at 1.5ppm ammonia, 1 ppm Nitrite and 10 ppm Nitrate.....

I decided _not_ to dose today, to see if the ammonia will go to 0 by tomorrow. 

Is it normal for a cycle to stay at this stage for an entire week, or did I stall it? It was moving along really quickly until this part - and now won't go below those readings, that's why I thought I may have stalled something.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

Just leave it be for a couple of days, then dose it again, and wait 24 hours and see if ammonia and nitrites go to zero. If it does do a water change and good to go. If not give it a while longer. Your not stalled just nearing the end.


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

Ok, thanks! I'll give it another day or two. (It's been the Nitrites that have been taking the longest to go down.) 

Super excited about getting the critters into the tank though, so fingers crossed that it'll be done by the end of the week!!


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Nitrites always take the longest.


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

k. Thanks! It's still at 1.5ppm ammonia today with Nitrites at 1ppm again, so I think I'll re-dose to get it back to 4ppm ammonia. (Don't want the high levels of Nitrite to die off while it's just trying to take care of 1.5ppm ammonia. That would suck to have to start over again!)

Or am I wrong? Should I not re-dose again until ammonia is at 0ppm? Then see if it is gone within 24 hours? (Sorry, I'm just confused because the instructions say to dose every other day until the ammonia reads 0 in 24 hours as well as Nitrites.) But, if you think I should just not dose again until it's at 0ppm and then dose, I'll do that.


----------



## susankat (Nov 15, 2008)

Go ahead and dose today. If you are getting these readings from the test strips, as said in other post, toss the damn things. They may be your problem to begin with.


----------



## jpdysart00 (Jun 26, 2011)

is there a detailed post somewhere about cycling a new tank?


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

Alrighty. I shall dose today. (I've been using the liquid to test the cycling tank.) I only used the test strips to compare them with the liquid tests when the shrimp started dying.

*Jpdysart00:* There is a sticky in the New To The Fresh Water Aquarium" section that is all about fishless cycling. (Which I _highly_ recommend over cycling with fish!)


----------



## stingray (Jul 8, 2011)

See I never have this problem with fish in cycle. My tanks cycle fast with fish and booming with beneficial bacterial.


----------



## Mushtang (Jun 15, 2011)

I read about fishless cycling for the first time on this forum about two months ago, when I was completely redoing my 55 gallon tank. Not being one that values the lives of a few 19 cent goldfish highly I decided to use them to cycle my tank instead. It was finished in just a few weeks and ready for stocking, and I only lost 3 goldfish in the process. Started with 6, and had to put 3 more in after a few died.

Maybe that's cruel of me, I don't know. But it sure seems a LOT easier than the fishless cycle that people here seem to have non-stop issues with. Even without issues it still requires tons of work (adding the ammonia every day, monitoring the levels of 3 different things, keeping a log to be aware of trends, etc). I took 2 measurements - 1 when the 3rd fish died and I saw the ammonia was pretty high, and another one a couple of weeks later and saw it was down to zero.

Please don't take this post as bashing the fishless method, or bashing those that use it, it's more of just offering another point of view. The fishless method definitely has a place for those that aren't willing to sacrifice a few cheap fish, but for those that are it doesn't seem like a better option. I don't see any benefit to fishless cycling other than avoiding a few dead fish, or am I missing something?


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Mushtang said:


> I read about fishless cycling for the first time on this forum about two months ago, when I was completely redoing my 55 gallon tank. Not being one that values the lives of a few 19 cent goldfish highly I decided to use them to cycle my tank instead. It was finished in just a few weeks and ready for stocking, and I only lost 3 goldfish in the process. Started with 6, and had to put 3 more in after a few died.
> 
> Maybe that's cruel of me, I don't know. But it sure seems a LOT easier than the fishless cycle that people here seem to have non-stop issues with. Even without issues it still requires tons of work (adding the ammonia every day, monitoring the levels of 3 different things, keeping a log to be aware of trends, etc). I took 2 measurements - 1 when the 3rd fish died and I saw the ammonia was pretty high, and another one a couple of weeks later and saw it was down to zero.
> 
> Please don't take this post as bashing the fishless method, or bashing those that use it, it's more of just offering another point of view. The fishless method definitely has a place for those that aren't willing to sacrifice a few cheap fish, but for those that are it doesn't seem like a better option. I don't see any benefit to fishless cycling other than avoiding a few dead fish, or am I missing something?


Your way worked but it is also the most cruelist and now you have a bunch of goldies you may not want and have to do something with, but then again if you bought more..... 

When it comes down to it, you sort of have it backwards. A fishless cycle should be less work. Assuming you actually want the fish that are currently in your tank. Adding drops of ammonia and running tests is nothing compared to the "usual" water changes one has to do to keep fish alive. Doesn't sound like you did that and probably why you lost a few and it was less work for you.


----------



## Mushtang (Jun 15, 2011)

jrman83 said:


> Your way worked but it is also the most cruelist and now you have a bunch of goldies you may not want and have to do something with, but then again if you bought more.....
> 
> When it comes down to it, you sort of have it backwards. A fishless cycle should be less work. Assuming you actually want the fish that are currently in your tank. Adding drops of ammonia and running tests is nothing compared to the "usual" water changes one has to do to keep fish alive. Doesn't sound like you did that and probably why you lost a few and it was less work for you.


I did leave out a little bit of the story. I've done a water change during the cycle, but the tank is being set up as an African Cichlid tank, and the goldfish will eventually become Cichlid food when the Cichlids get big enough. So if they died during the cycle it was only a change in the timeline, they were all going to die eventually. 

I know that sounds cruel to some, but animals are food in nature and so I don't see it as a problem.


----------



## Pigeonfish (Jun 23, 2011)

jrman83 said:


> When it comes down to it, you sort of have it backwards. A fishless cycle should be less work.


You're absolutely right. I think the difference is that a fishless cycle is more _mentally_ challenging. Ex. Keeping track of the doses and what not. That's my opinion on it. Also finding the correct Ammonia is a bit complicated. I would most likely do the fishless cycle in bigger tanks, where I'd want bigger and more sensitive fish, but for my small tanks at the moment, I'll use the silent method with plants and small hardy fish that I want anyways. :3



Mushtang said:


> I know that sounds cruel to some, but animals are food in nature and so I don't see it as a problem.


Perhaps if a lion were chasing you as a prey then it might seem as a problem. 

Haha, only teasing. Of course humans would have that mind set, we have no natural predator.


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

^ actually, the really only natural human predator is the Polar Bear. I heard that on an Animal Planet show..... which is ok for you U.S. people, but us up here in Canada gotta' watch out! (Lol, just kidding'.... we're still too far south for Polar bears here...) 

Which is odd.... cause you'd think Lions and Tigers would be natural predators in some areas as well....


----------



## Mushtang (Jun 15, 2011)

Pigeonfish said:


> You're absolutely right. I think the difference is that a fishless cycle is more _mentally_ challenging. Ex. Keeping track of the doses and what not. That's my opinion on it. Also finding the correct Ammonia is a bit complicated.


That's my point, it seems like fishless has the same things as fish cycle, but also additional stuff. Having never done fishless I don't know, which is why I was asking what I might be missing.

This is how I understand it.

Fish cycle that I just finished:
Put in 6 fish
Do periodic water changes
replace the 3 fish that died
check Ammonia when replacing fish and see that it's high.
check Ammonia level after a week or two of no dead fish and discover I'm done.

That's 5 things. And that might be 7 TOTAL if your cycle takes enough time to requires 3 water changes during the month.

For a fishless cycle you must:
Find ammonia
add ammonia to tank (every day for around a month)
measure ammonia (every day starting about a week in)
measure nitrites (every day starting from when you see ammonia start to fall)
measure nitrates (every day starting from when you see ammonia start to fall)
Keep records of all your measurements to be able to see trends
Do water changes if you put in too much ammonia, or other issues

And I might have left out some stuff from the fishless list, but even with what I have it seems like a LOT more work than using fish. That's close to 80 or 90 things if the cycle takes an entire month.

Again, not trying to come across as bashing the fishless cycle, just discussing it and trying to see if I'm missing something.


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

Nah, I don't bother checking NitrAtes, because they are 80ppm from my tap..... so their high to begin with.

And, cycling with fish... you probably should be doing a weekly if not more, partial water changes to keep the fish from dying..... anything 1ppm and up will kill them...


----------



## PapaM (Jul 10, 2011)

Here fishy,fishy,fishy...........*j4


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Fish in and fishless cycles both have their strong points and purposes. Neither are better, it just comes down to which you have the tolerance to do. I think the fishless cycle teaches how to conduct testing and become more proficient at it and the cycle is typically much shorter, which is the main advantage. Shorter because water changes aren't needed to save the fish. A fish in cycle teaches what you need to do to keep your fish alive and I became very good at doing water changes, which is a good lesson for someone just starting out. Actually either cycle can perform many tests.

A silent cycle, silly name really, is the same as a fish in cycle except you also have plants. The cycle still doesn't start until fish are introduced and since the plants consume the ammonia, it can be an easier time. It also will take longer for biological bacteria to form and longer before you're able to stock the tank to any real level and the cycle may be the longest of any other method.


----------



## jrman83 (Jul 9, 2010)

Mushtang said:


> .....but the tank is being set up as an African Cichlid tank, and the goldfish will eventually become Cichlid food when the Cichlids get big enough. So if they died during the cycle it was only a change in the timeline, they were all going to die eventually.
> 
> I know that sounds cruel to some, but animals are food in nature and so I don't see it as a problem.


Your method makes perfect sense if the fish you used are feeder fish later anyway. Your method (using feeder fish to cycle a tank) has been mentioned quite a few times on here for even tanks that weren't going to need them later on.


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

Fishless cycling also lets you stock faster than non-fishless cycling. Like, almost full stocking once the cycle is done...


----------



## stingray (Jul 8, 2011)

The only difference between a cycled tank and an uncycled tank is the beneficial bacteria. Fish will still thrive in an uncycled tank as long as you do your water changes. The beneficial bacterial aka worker bees I call them just make aquarium life easier.


----------



## holly12 (Apr 21, 2011)

^ Thanks. 

I've had the tank cycled for almost 3 weeks now, and in that time, also managed to cycle and stock my 36g! (20g took 8 weeks and 36g took 3 - crazy how when you do things right the first time they work a lot faster! Lol.)


----------

