|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 11, 2009 22:11:18 GMT -5
I've seen Carl mention multiple times the flaws in cycling with shrimp, both on the forum and in his Nitrogen Cycle article (under 'Methods of Aquarium Cycling', header [3]). I was discussing this, among other things, with Jon, and I've got to say, unless I'm missing something, I disagree. The entire purpose of the fishless cycle is to get the biofilter prepared, and with that logic, you should be worrying about nothing other than the biofilter. For this reason, I ALWAYS recommend people doing a fishless cycle do massive water changes just before getting fish, whether they use ammonia, fish food, shrimp, or anything else. If the cycle is done, they're gonna have decent amounts of nitrate (regardless), and all kinds of dissolved organics (unless they're using straight ammonia), and all that needs to go. Even if a massive Saprolegnia population does develop, that should all get flushed out with the water changes, leaving you with a fully functional biofilter and clean water. With that said, I see no issues with using shrimp to cycle a tank, so long as it's done properly. I found the AquariumWiki article on fishless cycling, and I see that it also recommends a large water change as soon as the cycle finishes (though I feel it not as large as it should be considering the almost non-existent threat of 100% water changes at this point). What's your take, Carl?
|
|
|
Post by kagome on Mar 12, 2009 0:06:23 GMT -5
I think that one of the main problems with the shrimp cycling and the saprolegnia is that this mold does not just live in the water column. So even if you do a massive water change and vacuum out the gravel really really well it is still going to be in the tank. As the shrimp decomposes some of it will disintegrate into small pieces that will lodge themselves throughout the tank and probably even in the filter and the mold will grow on these. Once you've got a big colony of that stuff growing it can be really hard to completely get rid of it. Then you get the fish in there and not only are they having to deal with the stress of being in a new tank and the inevitable swing in parameters when there are major changes to the bioload but they are also being assaulted by the mold and then possibly the medications to treat the mold.
I also think that a common sense approach to this issue is that even if you had a totally cycled tank that had excellent biofiltration you would not leave a dead fish in there to rot because you would not want the toxins and molds from the fish's body in there. If you wouldn't do that then I really don't see why you would let a shrimp rot in the tank when you were first starting out. Your best bet is still to put in seasoned filter material from an established tank and "feed" it with tiny amounts of fish food.
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 12, 2009 0:19:39 GMT -5
Saprolegnia won't colonize inorganic surfaces, so the substrate, glass, and filter media aren't going to serve as a home for it. The only things that it will actually be able to colonize are the physical pieces of shrimp, which is exactly why Carl suggests liquifying fish food if you choose the fish food method to cycle-- the mold can't colonize it if the particles are so fine. Bits lodged in the filter will quickly be decomposed by bacteria and fungus, and once that's gone, they'll be back in the water column, easy to siphon out. I highly doubt (though I can't say for sure) that the filter would trap enough Saprolegnia spores to create any real population in a new tank, and if they're embedded well enough to prevent getting into the water column, chances are they're not gonna all burst out at once to infect the fish. I also think that a common sense approach to this issue is that even if you had a totally cycled tank that had excellent biofiltration you would not leave a dead fish in there to rot because you would not want the toxins and molds from the fish's body in there. If you wouldn't do that then I really don't see why you would let a shrimp rot in the tank when you were first starting out. There is a huge difference, though. With the shrimp, you're using a tank without fish. I'd not drop a shrimp into a fully cycled tank with fish in it; I think that is common sense. Putting a shrimp into a fishless tank, however, is entirely incomparable.
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 12, 2009 2:51:51 GMT -5
Soopy!!!!!!! Thank you thank you thank you a million times over for comming in. I apologize for not being on when you came, I mentioned to you I literally was off to the Bronx after I mailed you, and I just got back in. Picked up some beautiful white Peacocks. They still stressed, no point to take pics at this time, and 15 F1 verified Yellow labs, I'll grow out in a seperate tank, and 10 F1 Zebra Hongi Red Tops. Sorry know that's not a thread specific but just so you know, I was out buying and trading My only thought here, and again, you Carl and maybe Bill too, you have Biology over me no doubt about it as I have spent more time looking into the chemical aspects of stuff, but I'd think that the shrimp itself poses the problem as organic material or no? Where say if you just use the pure ammonia, you don't have any risk at all right? I don't know about spores or any of those pathogen things, not nearly as well as others, and hence why when I see a sick fish I take pics and ask because I don't know what they are. But just logically thinking, why not just advocate pure ammonia and that takes any organic decomposition problems, carbonic and nitric acid problems if left in too long right out of the picture, or am I looking at this from the wrong angle?
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 12, 2009 9:31:31 GMT -5
Although I do not have time today to respond in depth, what I have observed using this method and similar ideas such as frozen fish (such as a friend who used frozen silver sides) is that Saprolegnia will grow, and often may still be present in sufficient numbers when fish are introduced. Although I will admit that I have not observed regular problems, I CAN state that I have seen clients tanks where this method was used and the new fish were introduced later only to have Saproglenia outbreaks (usually also due to stress that often occurs with new fish). I do not follow this logic, as you are potentially adding something that can be a starting place for pathogenic Saprolegnia. What difference is there between adding decomposing shrimp to a tank that has fish or one that will have fish in a short time; the answers is yes there is less risk, but this does not mean that the Saprolegnia does not retreat into the gravel or even into the water column. In fact as for the water column, how else does Saprolegnia getting into fish wounds, gills, etc other than the water column. As well in controlled experiments with UV Sterilization, why did my incidence of pathogenic Saprolegnia go down dramatically upon the introduction of UV Sterilization which CANNOT sterilize pathogens in the gravel or elsewhere The bottom line is even if this is uncommon (saprolegnia introduction via raw shrimp), why would one even risk this when there are many other good ways of fishless cycling such as using fine fish food, pure ammonia, or my preferred way of aged filter media transfer. I stand by this comment,and do not agree with theuse of raw shrimp or similar (such as the use of frozen silversides during the early years of this idea before it was dumped by aquarium professionals only to be revived on the internet 15 years later) based on my observation of this method as compared to others. Aquarium Nitrogen CycleCarl
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 12, 2009 9:38:31 GMT -5
As for the idea of a large water change, I see no harm in this, and there may be the benefit of reducing both Autotrophic and Heteotrophic bacteria in the water column prior to fish introduction. In a healthy cycled tank, the bacteria belong in the filter media/gravel, not the water column, so this idea I agree with.
Carl
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 12, 2009 10:04:34 GMT -5
I have no idea what can grow on what or what causes these thing or anything like that, hence why when I get a sick fish or something don't look right, that's why I start taking pics and asking for help! Sometimes I wish I put more attention in biology class. I will say now that you bring up UV though Carl, in the many other cichlid keepers I've talked with, met with, or traded fish with these last few months, many of the longer term keepers still are kind of like drawing a blank stare when I start asking what they think about UV and if they use it. That being said too, I still have yet to get it in my tanks, but from the points you've shown me about stress and health effects of that, and keeping numerous Africans, I will be taking care of that very soon and get UV going. I just don't understand yet how these people keep their stock and seem to avoid pathogens.
I don't add new fish right into the main tank, they sit in the 15 or 20 first, I basically feed the same diets, and only buy or trade for certain species. I try to take precautions and this is getting too much off use of shrimp to cycle too. But speaking at least of use of raw shrimp, I mentioned to Vinny the other day, I felt this was one of the main parts that got the female egg laden, I chopped up very finely, raw shrimp figuring I'd give a better protein boost to her, and his comment was, just keep an eye out and hope they don't get hexticemia from that.
|
|
|
Post by bikeguy33 on Mar 12, 2009 16:29:32 GMT -5
what we did in aquaria maintenance to cycle a tank quickly was quite simple. we had an indoor koi pond stocked full.....overfull actually. we had 8 canister filters working in that tank. that tanks ONLY purpose was to provide seasoned filter media. we couldn`t risk any pathogin going into a clients tank....especially since we were only around every 1 to 2 weeks. in my humble opinion....if allowing an animal to rot to cycle a tank....it should AT THE VERY LEAST be kept inside of a piece of pantyhose. at least that way, when the decomposition starts to happen and the animal starts to break up....all the pieces ar togeather and easy to remove all at once. this wouldn`t completely get rid of the problem of disease, but it would help to minimize the pathogens.
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 12, 2009 17:41:59 GMT -5
Although I do not have time today to respond in depth, what I have observed using this method and similar ideas such as frozen fish (such as a friend who used frozen silver sides) is that Saprolegnia will grow, and often may still be present in sufficient numbers when fish are introduced. I do not follow this logic, as you are potentially adding something that can be a starting place for pathogenic Saprolegnia. What difference is there between adding decomposing shrimp to a tank that has fish or one that will have fish in a short time; I don't think you got what I was trying to say. Surely there will be a rise in Saprolegnia when the shrimp is in there. I'm not contesting that. What I do find arguable is the massive water change that should ensue. It would be irresponsible to simply cycle the tank by any method and then just toss fish in. There will be loads of nitrates from the month-long addition of ammonia (either by pure ammonia or rotting material). That water change will also be removing all the Saprolegnia in the water column, and anything that gets trapped in the gravel. While the shrimp may spike the population of Saprolegnia, the water change will drop that number right back to where it started before the shrimp was added. I never said the fungus wasn't in the water column-- in fact, I argued that it was almost only in the water column, which is why it's so simple to remove it with water changes. The difference between putting a raw shrimp in a fishless tank and putting a raw shrimp in a cycled tank with fish is that the fishless tank will have a massive water change performed with the removal of the shrimp. This means that you essentially never had the shrimp in there, except that the filter media is now useful. My entire point is that this is only potentially harmful if you finish the cycle and toss fish in; if you just leave the media be while replacing the water, you've removed virtually ALL the fungal spores, ALL the nitrates, and ALL the organics. That means you have a tank with almost no fungal spores (if any), no nitrates, and no organics-- exactly what you would have if you cycled a tank with ammonia, fish food, or fish just after performing a full water change.
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 13, 2009 17:45:26 GMT -5
I was talking to Carl for a bit and one thing I extracted from Carl, though I was solving another problem ( I did a DIY egg tumbler per se, but with a guppy breeding trap was the reason I called) and as noted, this pathogen does pass through the water column but will also root into the gravel, as well as filter media.
What I see out of this as well, water change, yup you gotta have that or the whole thing is pointless. Learned something new here on that. I never have done a fishless cycle unless using established media counts as that. But even with the water change, what you have to account for I think is that lets say this Sapprolagia? (Spelling sorry) begins to root due to shrimp, it won't just stay in one spot given the time a fishless cycle tanks and it would spread all through out the gravel bed, in different levels. Assuming like to solve this aspect, you took all the gravel out 100% and rinsed it out to fix this part, some of those spores are as well going to root up into the filter bed, and cleaning that, would defeat all the work just done.
I am not sure even if say using this method with inconjuction with UV would be effective or not, I have no research material to support this in any way. I'm just speculating, you should use UV if you are using shrimp to cycle and I think this would likely take care of this issue since it would kill almost all the spores, no question. I honestly can't say I'd know this as a fact or not.
What I am thinking to myself here is this. I know the "battle cry" for fishless cycling advocation is why risk harm to fish when you don't have to. I agree that it would be a cruel practice to do it just to do it. I think personally, with the use of Prime and proper water maintenance, damage could be limited to very little maybe not at all. That's just my feelings. But still going back to the root of the logic itself, if knowing that Saprolagia could get into a fishless cycled tank, and if you used pure ammonia which wouldn't even have that as a chance to happen, why take the chance?
Not being ignorant, nor making fun of anyone on this thread, because again, I've never done a fishless cycle, but is using shrimp like faster then straight ammonia or something that makes this they way to go? I'm just sitting here thinking, why use shrimp at all then? What is the advantage if any to using it? Please again, not being ignorant or rude, explain it to me like I'm 5 (You know like they say in the movie Philadelphia)
|
|
|
Post by goldenpuon on Mar 13, 2009 18:15:57 GMT -5
I would definitely not recommend cycling with any amount of shrimp. I have had saprolegnia growing just from too much uneaten food. I may not too know much on the biology behind it but I know anything such as shrimp or raw put into the water will rot. I have fed my fish freeze-dried krill and spit it out. It was so broken down I decided not to remove it. But before I knew it saprolegia was collecting on the bits of krill let behind. All the water changes in the world didn't fix it! It just kept coming back, appearing on any bit of organic matter and I continued siphoning it out. Eventually I took the fish out and let the tank sit for a while before bleaching it and I discovered saprolgenia and some other stuff growing in it.
I have had fish that had been dead under 24 hours when I found them and fuzzy stuff was already all over them. These fish weren't sick with it to begin with either. And with shrimp, saprolegnia will root onto it similarly to a dead fish.
Do what you think is best but if you do the cycling with shrimp, try to wait a little and see if anything is growing in there after you get any remanants of the shrimp out. I'm not trying to sound pushy or be stubborn on this but in my experience, it is definitely not a good idea.
Best of luck, whatever cycling method you choose.
Renee
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 13, 2009 18:22:56 GMT -5
Soup; Actually I think I did understand your point of using a water change and agreed this is a good idea for many reasons, but this does not completely solve the Saprolgnia problem.
However I am not sure you understood my point, and that is a 50% water change will NOT reduce Saprolegnia in the water column to levels it would be if this method decaying shrimp or similar were not used.
Unless this is a bare tank, the Saprolegnia would still be present in higher than normal numbers in the gravel and spread to the water column.
As another example, I have seen cloudy tanks due to high amounts of aerobic bacteria in the water column have more than 50% of the water change, ONLY to see the cloud bounce back due to high organics elsewhere in the tank.
The footprint of the decayed shrimp, silverside, etc can remain for quite sometime, even with water changes and vacuuming., just ask a forensic pathologist.
As noted earlier, I did not perform good controlled studies with this method, however mine and others notes in the aquarium maintenance profession when this fad first came to life seemed to indicate that the incidence of Saprolgnia was higher when this method was used. However I did perform controlled studies with Saprolgnia itself and how it related to UV sterilization, and these studies included water changes to lower the pathogens in the water column. the results showed that the incidence was lowest when the UV Sterilizer was used, which indicates that changing water does not totally eradicate this problem.
As Jon also noted, why use this method, even if the risk were low with water changes as well (which as you noted area good idea regardless of method), when there are methods with less risk yet (such as what Bill/bikeguy noted).
Obviously it ultimately is one's choice what method to use, however this is not a method I would recommend, especially to a newbie, as both anecdotal and controlled evidence does not support it being as safe (or even as effective as the aged filter media) as other methods.
Carl
PS, since I am out of town & attending to more pressing issues, I will not be able to respond for a few days, but I hopefully did a better job of explaining myself this time (but who knows, this was typed out in a hurry too)
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 15, 2009 17:58:23 GMT -5
Well, I was just getting ready to post this response when the browser shut down, so here’s my second attempt…
I never suggested any specific size water change other than one of 100% in my first post. Drawing from your research with UV sterilizers on Saprolegnia, it makes sense that a 100% water change would be just as effective. As you noted, UV won’t have any effect on anything in the gravel or filter. If you were able to decimate the Saprolegnia population with UV sterilization, it is a sign that the gravel and filter house very minor numbers of Saprolegnia. Saprolegnia mycelia won’t attach to inorganic surfaces because they can’t derive any nutrition from them. This means that they won’t actually colonize the gravel, they’ll just kinda sit there. This also means that simply siphoning the gravel (until there’s no water left in the tank) will drain the gravel of the fungus. As Renee noted, all the water changes in the world won’t do much good; that’s because you have to eliminate the water column and replace it with a “fresh” water column. That “fresh” water column will remove any footprint from the shrimp, as well.
I’d love to use straight ammonia, and recommend ammonia every time. However, I’ve not been able to find it, and I’ve checked upwards of 10 hardware stores. All I’ve seen is ammonia with surfactants, which as Carl wrote in his article, is dangerous.
The idea of using the UV sterilizer to eliminate the Saprolegnia is good, but it won’t work mid-cycle. During the cycle, all the bacteria are still in the water column, and will be affected, just as the Saprolegnia is, by the UV sterilizer. This will basically stop the cycle, or at least slow it to a creeping rate. Maybe the use of a UV sterilizer AFTER the tank has cycled, could work, as sufficient bacteria will have colonized the filter media, while the fungus is still largely suspended; you’d still be hard pressed to cycle the tank while running UV…
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 15, 2009 19:30:52 GMT -5
I understand your reason as for using ammonia, but why then not use the fish food method or if another tank with seasoned media is available, why not use this method, as this is still the preferred method in my experience (& Bill's too). A pureed fish food added to the tank will also disperse better into the filters for aerobic bacteria to later colonize much better than a decomposing shrimp will, which is another reason this method would be preferred over the the shrimp method
This is a good point, however the Saprolegnia mycelia can adhere to other organics in the gravel (which is why my point as to forensic scientist still being able to find trace on in organic surfaces).
My point as to the UV Sterilizer was also meant to point out how Saprolegnia can still be in the water column, based on the reduced incidence Saprolegnia vs water changes, not to recommend the use of a UV mid cycle. However if I understand you correctly, the use of a UV Sterilizer to clear the tank of pathogens prior to fish introduction certainly is a feasible one and I would agree would likely reduce the risk of Saprolegnia to near 0 for the new fish, even with injuries that can easily be a starting point of a Saprolgnia infection.
I re-read my post, so I still do not think I am getting across my point though, as it seems you took my points about UV studies & Saprolegnia as me recommending the use of UV Sterilization during the cycling process, of which nothing could be further from the truth, as I have never nor do I in my articles advocate the use of UV Sterilization during the establishment of the bio filter. In fact this is why in many of my writings I recommend to add a UV AFTER a filter, not before as some persons advocate.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here, as I still cannot advocate this method to beginners in particular when there are better more proven methods to cycle one's aquarium
Carl
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 15, 2009 20:08:29 GMT -5
My point as to the UV Sterilizer was also meant to point out how Saprolegnia can still be in the water column, based on the reduced incidence Saprolegnia vs water changes, not to recommend the use of a UV mid cycle. However if I understand you correctly, the use of a UV Sterilizer to clear the tank of pathogens prior to fish introduction certainly is a feasible one and I would agree would likely reduce the risk of Saprolegnia to near 0 for the new fish, even with injuries that can easily be a starting point of a Saprolgnia infection. I re-read my post, so I still do not think I am getting across my point though, as it seems you took my points about UV studies & Saprolegnia as me recommending the use of UV Sterilization during the cycling process, of which nothing could be further from the truth, as I have never nor do I in my articles advocate the use of UV Sterilization during the establishment of the bio filter. In fact this is why in many of my writings I recommend to add a UV AFTER a filter, not before as some persons advocate. Sorry about that one. That whole bit about UV sterilizers during the cycle was in response to Jon's most recent post. However, I think your UV experiments are still pertinent to complete water changes, as it supports my claim that replacing the water column would produce similar results.
|
|
|
Post by murdock6701 on Mar 15, 2009 20:55:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 15, 2009 22:45:23 GMT -5
I guess I am not seeing this, as I found different results with water changes vs. the use of UV Sterilization, and the point is that the UV Sterilizer will continue to kill Saprolegnia spores in the water column, while in these tests, the Saprolegnia would still be present as the source may still be there in both cases, however the UV suppresses this in the water column ONLY. This same phenomenon happens when a client had cloudy water; the water change would TEMPORARILY correct the problem, while the UV would more permanently correct the problem. Both the water change and the UV do not effect the organic sources of either problem, so this is a constant. The difference would be that the bacterial cloud or Saprolegnia would immediately bounce back after water changes, as the source of the problem was still present, while with the UV, the process of removal from the water column was ongoing. This is not to say the water change would not be a good finish to either the Shrimp/dead fish method or most other fishless cycling method as this certainly can reduce nutrients in the water column as well as the pathogen count. Please do not get me wrong, I think water changes are still one of the most important part of maintenance an aquarist can perform as it helps with many aspects of water quality such as Redox, & even with a bacterial cloud it is certainly the first step an aquarist often should perform, however it cannot remove all sources of all organic mulm or other organic decomposition footprints, even with a thorough vacuuming. Carl
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 16, 2009 0:03:58 GMT -5
My point as to the UV Sterilizer was also meant to point out how Saprolegnia can still be in the water column, based on the reduced incidence Saprolegnia vs water changes, not to recommend the use of a UV mid cycle. However if I understand you correctly, the use of a UV Sterilizer to clear the tank of pathogens prior to fish introduction certainly is a feasible one and I would agree would likely reduce the risk of Saprolegnia to near 0 for the new fish, even with injuries that can easily be a starting point of a Saprolgnia infection. I re-read my post, so I still do not think I am getting across my point though, as it seems you took my points about UV studies & Saprolegnia as me recommending the use of UV Sterilization during the cycling process, of which nothing could be further from the truth, as I have never nor do I in my articles advocate the use of UV Sterilization during the establishment of the bio filter. In fact this is why in many of my writings I recommend to add a UV AFTER a filter, not before as some persons advocate. Sorry about that one. That whole bit about UV sterilizers during the cycle was in response to Jon's most recent post. However, I think your UV experiments are still pertinent to complete water changes, as it supports my claim that replacing the water column would produce similar results. Sorry Soop, I didn't mean to detract. I don't have UV myself and just read up a bit on what it does, but the point you make about bacteria being killed off by the UV while you are trying to cycle the tank, makes sense now that you say it. That never occured to me. I just see pathogen or something make fish sick, kill the pathogen LOL Seriously, that's why if I see something don't look right, I start taking pics and asking hey is something wrong and if yes, what should I do. I mailed magic, copper and Carl many times with shots and had to ask, what should I do to fix this. Lately, things have gotten better, and overall, since I set tanks up again a few years ago, I'm about 60 - 40 between fish make it and fish die. I can say on a positive note though, instances of fish getting sick have gone way way down since using Carls material and personal input. The water change aspect, I think we all have a common ground concur on this. To support your point and everyone elses, I can testify that when increasing my water change frequency from once a week to once every 4-5 days, fish colors have heightend, fish activity has picked up, and the amount of issues with fungus and bacteria's have dropped to maybe 2-3 times a year, and usually, it's after I acquire new pick ups. I should keep in mind that we are discussing new tank set up when it comes to UV and I apologize I missed the boat on that. I still don't understand though, why not just use the pure ammonia? I don't like the fish food myself I think it adds work you need to do. The reason I base this on, when I re-setup the 20 gallon due to increased spawns and needed space, I got it ready ahead of time, so nothing was going to be in the tank for about five days. I took an establish HOB (Aquaclear 50) and took it off since it was a second filter from my 15 gallon tank, but added fish food in there to keep material in. I found after 2-3 days though, mold or fungus growing on it, got all white and fuzzy which left me puzzled. I suppose it could be that since that tank had been empty so long, I didn't clean it well enough when I refilled it? But still, it leaves me to think, anything organic like shrimp or food might cause this to occur, and ammonia, I am thinking, totally leaves this out right? Not to be a pest, but I did ask if there were any significant advantages to use of shrimp anyways, so if anyone has anything on that, I'd honestly like to know what is the advantage to even using shrimp??
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 16, 2009 0:05:48 GMT -5
John, I have used Algone in the past, and I will testify that this product works very effectively and well. I have seen some posts in other places where people reported less then desirable results, so I can only say that there was a small algae problem in the 75 when I moved it out to the house. I blocked off all light too, but still it kept growing until I employed Algone with a phosphate remover. Not a problem ever since.
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 16, 2009 18:22:22 GMT -5
Carl: You tested 50% water changes. With 50% water changes, you're still leaving 50% of the Saprolegnia, and 50% of the organic matter that will fuel the Saprolegnia growth. I suggested 100% water changes. With 100% water changes, you remove 100% of the Saprolegnia (or very close to it), and 100% of the organic material that the Saprolegnia would feed on. In that respect, a UV filter and a 100% water change serve about the same purpose-- to kill off/remove all (or nearly all) the mold, and suppress its growth (the UV by killing any new mold, the water change by not offering it any nutrient source).
In the client's tank you refered to, I'm guessing you did a 50% water change at best. The bacterial population quickly rebounded because 50% of the population was left, as was 50% of whatever nutrient source that population was using-- more than enough to sustain a re-bloom.
Jon: I think I mentioned this in my version one answer and forgot to add it again to my 2.0 version (after the server dropped on v1.0). Shrimp's biggest advantage is that it's available. I can't find straight ammonia. There is also the added advantage of not having to dose the tank daily, or really, more than once or twice throughout the cycle. With ammonia, there is a lot of monitoring, and adding based on that monitoring; with shrimp, it's largely drop-n-go.
EDIT: Sorry Jon... I said this in my last post: "I’d love to use straight ammonia, and recommend ammonia every time. However, I’ve not been able to find it, and I’ve checked upwards of 10 hardware stores. All I’ve seen is ammonia with surfactants, which as Carl wrote in his article, is dangerous," which was a vague allusion to your question, but I didn't really elaborate.
|
|