Question about Cycling?
- Thread starter ccooper34
- Start date
florida joe
Well-Known Member
in a 90 two whole small shrimp is fine you can leave the head and remove the shell
flower
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by ccooper34
http:///forum/post/3241813
Instead of using Dansels to cycle my 90gal tank I have decided to use dead shrimp which has been on Ice and probably frozen. Now to my question what size, how many and is it ok to leave the heads on or completly deheaded and shell removed?
Stick the shrimp in a mesh bag and just toss it in the tank, let it do its thing.
http:///forum/post/3241813
Instead of using Dansels to cycle my 90gal tank I have decided to use dead shrimp which has been on Ice and probably frozen. Now to my question what size, how many and is it ok to leave the heads on or completly deheaded and shell removed?
Stick the shrimp in a mesh bag and just toss it in the tank, let it do its thing.
ibanez
Member
Originally Posted by ccooper34
http:///forum/post/3241813
Instead of using Damsels to cycle my 90gal tank I have decided to use dead shrimp which has been on Ice and probably frozen. Now to my question what size, how many and is it ok to leave the heads on or completly deheaded and shell removed?
Good choice, good educated decision.
http:///forum/post/3241813
Instead of using Damsels to cycle my 90gal tank I have decided to use dead shrimp which has been on Ice and probably frozen. Now to my question what size, how many and is it ok to leave the heads on or completly deheaded and shell removed?
Good choice, good educated decision.
pezenfuego
Active Member
I agree with the above for the most part. Ghost feeding is an excellent thing, don't get me wrong. After your cycle completes, you can remove the shrimp and start ghost feeding until you are ready to add fish. You could just add fish immediately after the cycle completes, but if you are unable to, you need to make sure that there is a constant ammonia source.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
plus 1 i would only add that flake food is highly concentrated and you only need a small amount to insure your filtration is thriving
Very true, in other words, the cycle never really completes
an educated hobbyist me thinks
Very true, in other words, the cycle never really completes
an educated hobbyist me thinks
ibanez
Member
Originally Posted by florida joe
http:///forum/post/3241852
an educated hobbyist me thinks
I would like to think so, unfortunately I have more knowledge than I have space and money at the moment, and this helps me get my fix until I can set up my dream reef.
http:///forum/post/3241852
an educated hobbyist me thinks
I would like to think so, unfortunately I have more knowledge than I have space and money at the moment, and this helps me get my fix until I can set up my dream reef.
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by IbanEz
http:///forum/post/3241891
I would like to think so, unfortunately I have more knowledge than I have space and money at the moment, and this helps me get my fix until I can set up my dream reef.
I'm right there with you. I'm poor but interested. I would (and have) argue that in our tanks, the nitrogen cycle isn't really a cycle at all. This is because we have to interfere in order to keep our fish alive (feeding) and remove nutrients in excess (water changes).
http:///forum/post/3241891
I would like to think so, unfortunately I have more knowledge than I have space and money at the moment, and this helps me get my fix until I can set up my dream reef.
I'm right there with you. I'm poor but interested. I would (and have) argue that in our tanks, the nitrogen cycle isn't really a cycle at all. This is because we have to interfere in order to keep our fish alive (feeding) and remove nutrients in excess (water changes).
ibanez
Member
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego
http:///forum/post/3241902
I'm right there with you. I'm poor but interested. I would (and have) argue that in our tanks, the nitrogen cycle isn't really a cycle at all. This is because we have to interfere in order to keep our fish alive (feeding) and remove nutrients in excess (water changes).
True to some extent, although only for aesthetic reasons IMO, because if you are not worried about aesthetics, You could in fact have a system that is mostly self contained with the right choice of fish and the right size and aquascape. For instance, You could have a 90 gallon tank with live rock, rubble, deep sand bed, and macro algae, a pair of mandarins and the introduction of pods, and would only require top offs, theoretically.
http:///forum/post/3241902
I'm right there with you. I'm poor but interested. I would (and have) argue that in our tanks, the nitrogen cycle isn't really a cycle at all. This is because we have to interfere in order to keep our fish alive (feeding) and remove nutrients in excess (water changes).
True to some extent, although only for aesthetic reasons IMO, because if you are not worried about aesthetics, You could in fact have a system that is mostly self contained with the right choice of fish and the right size and aquascape. For instance, You could have a 90 gallon tank with live rock, rubble, deep sand bed, and macro algae, a pair of mandarins and the introduction of pods, and would only require top offs, theoretically.
florida joe
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by IbanEz
http:///forum/post/3241914
True to some extent, although only for aesthetic reasons IMO, because if you are not worried about aesthetics, You could in fact have a system that is mostly self contained with the right choice of fish and the right size and aquascape. For instance, You could have a 90 gallon tank with live rock, rubble, deep sand bed, and macro algae, a pair of mandarins and the introduction of pods, and would only require top offs, theoretically.
and thus we have a self perpetuating cycle
http:///forum/post/3241914
True to some extent, although only for aesthetic reasons IMO, because if you are not worried about aesthetics, You could in fact have a system that is mostly self contained with the right choice of fish and the right size and aquascape. For instance, You could have a 90 gallon tank with live rock, rubble, deep sand bed, and macro algae, a pair of mandarins and the introduction of pods, and would only require top offs, theoretically.
and thus we have a self perpetuating cycle
pezenfuego
Active Member
Originally Posted by IbanEz
http:///forum/post/3241914
True to some extent, although only for aesthetic reasons IMO, because if you are not worried about aesthetics, You could in fact have a system that is mostly self contained with the right choice of fish and the right size and aquascape. For instance, You could have a 90 gallon tank with live rock, rubble, deep sand bed, and macro algae, a pair of mandarins and the introduction of pods, and would only require top offs, theoretically.
In the ocean, the nitrogen cycle certainly is a cycle. The ammonia turns to nitrite, nitrate, and nitrogen which in turn feeds alga and plants. When these things are eaten by fish and other organisms, they produce ammonia and we have a cycle.
In most cases, this can't be (or isn't) replicated to a T in our tanks. I don't think it's worth rewriting the books for.
http:///forum/post/3241914
True to some extent, although only for aesthetic reasons IMO, because if you are not worried about aesthetics, You could in fact have a system that is mostly self contained with the right choice of fish and the right size and aquascape. For instance, You could have a 90 gallon tank with live rock, rubble, deep sand bed, and macro algae, a pair of mandarins and the introduction of pods, and would only require top offs, theoretically.
In the ocean, the nitrogen cycle certainly is a cycle. The ammonia turns to nitrite, nitrate, and nitrogen which in turn feeds alga and plants. When these things are eaten by fish and other organisms, they produce ammonia and we have a cycle.
In most cases, this can't be (or isn't) replicated to a T in our tanks. I don't think it's worth rewriting the books for.