|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 16, 2009 19:32:59 GMT -5
Soup, yes in the UV tests with Saprolegnia, I only changed 50% of the water, however in the cloudy water tests, many were not only 100% changes, but 100% then filled then 100% immediately again.
The sources would be similar as well; a foot print of decomposing organic mulm either in the gravel or in a bio filter (or both).
Honestly I have noted the point of cloudy water and the foot print already in this thread more than once, so I am not sure why you keep going back to the water column, when that is not the source of the issue.
Also. although anecdotal on my part, I have used the Shrimp/fish method before (it was more popular to use fish when this idea was first floated about 15 years ago, or at least that is when I first heard of the idea). This method did not perform as well as the Seasoned media method nor the powdered fish food method in how well it established a bio bacterial colony. As well, others that I trusted that were also aquarium professionals tried this method (some more than me) and although I do not know their methods of control, I do know that their review was mixed as well.
If you like this method, I think it is certainly a feasible method, but again I still will note that there are more proven and reliable methods rather than resorting to this method, and for a newbie, I would definitely not feel comfortable recommending this method based on both the availability of other methods and the evidence for this method.
What I am not sure of is why this method (which was best described as a fad 15 years ago) got revived on the internet other than for someone to claim they came up with this "new" method, but this is just a guess on my part.
Jon;
You noted that you had moldy rotten fish food when adding fish food for starting your cycle, this is why it is best to powder the flake food (no pellets), or even better liquefy it by adding the powder into a cup and shaking it. Then adding this to the water column, preferably near a filter intake.
Carl
|
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 16, 2009 21:10:18 GMT -5
Honestly I have noted the point of cloudy water and the foot print already in this thread more than once, so I am not sure why you keep going back to the water column, when that is not the source of the issue. You've noted the footprint only with regards to a 50% water change. It makes no sense that when removing 100% of the water, and the shrimp (which one would presumably do before popping fish in the tank), that there would still be a footprint-- everything is gone: the water with all the dissolved organics and nitrates, the shrimp itself, and all the shrimp-bits in the gravel (as I've mentioned, the gravel should be vacuumed, not just the water siphoned out). It is an entirely different matter with the bacteria in question (which I failed to note in my prior post, making that comparisson), as they can derrive nutrition from the water column, unlike Saprolegnia, which needs to colonize an organic surface. If you found a tank with a Saprolegnia bloom and did the same 100% water change, much as with adding the UV sterilizer, you'd see the numbers drop to near 0. |
|
|
|
Post by brenda on Mar 16, 2009 22:39:45 GMT -5
After reading all this my opinion is...Why even take the chance in using shrimp? Even if there was only a VERY small chance of the Saprolegnia staying in the tank I just wouldn't think taking that chance would even be worth it. Why even put your fish at risk when there are so many other ways of cycling a tank?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 16, 2009 23:10:04 GMT -5
After reading all this my opinion is...Why even take the chance in using shrimp? Even if there was only a VERY small chance of the Saprolegnia staying in the tank I just wouldn't think taking that chance would even be worth it. Why even put your fish at risk when there are so many other ways of cycling a tank? ? At this point, you're right... it's largely a battle of semantics. I just wanted to illustrate the point that there are good ways and bad ways to do it, advantages and disadvantages, and that I think the risk, if done properly, has been overplayed by many people. |
|
|
|
Post by eve on Mar 16, 2009 23:16:22 GMT -5
LET'S AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS ONE HERE
|
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 16, 2009 23:36:31 GMT -5
Good information on this I think because it opens up a deeper discussion where people might be thinking one thing, but never experessing it. If everyone always just agreed on things, there'd be little use for forums and threads really. Something like this, I do not see as divisive really because without anyone saying their thoughts, it's all left unsaid. Better to get it out in the open.
I think Soop gave me what I was looking for that use of Shrimp has an advantage of not having to do as much continual monitoring, still though there is a risk of pathogens. Be it small or large there is some risk. Most anything we choose in our hobby carries some levels of risk really. Anytime you add a new fish, you never know what it could carry in your tank, otherwise we wouldn't talk about quarenntine tanks. Foods, diets, water care habits, heck I've seen many European keepers hold fast to 20 ppm nitrates as the threshold not to go over, and many American keepers stick with 40 ppm. There's much debate going on about the use of a 55 gallon vs 75 gallon for minimum on Oscar keeping.
This hobby as a whole is no exact science, so there's always need for continued talks and discussions. Some subjects, don't need as much discussion as others. In my opinion, this was a good subject to get out in the air. Thank you everyone for the information and interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Mar 17, 2009 9:36:46 GMT -5
Good information on this I think because it opens up a deeper discussion where people might be thinking one thing, but never expressing it. If everyone always just agreed on things, there'd be little use for forums and threads really. While I definitely agree with this Jon, as I have learned much from others that have showed me errors in my thinking, especially when I am simply repeating company sales pitches such as I was with Bio Wheels until I was challenged by a friend/colleague in aquarium maintenance and afterwards conducted a study that showed that the bio wheel was over rated. HOWEVER this is not what is happening here IMO. Soup, you make a good point as to the cloudy water vs. Saprolegnia example (however even here you miss points about this as well that I will discuss later), but you do not seem to want to listen to other points with statements such as this: I have already stated on more than one point in this thread that there WAS a difference in controlled tests between a the 100% water change and the use of a UV Sterilizer which demonstrates that there still is a source somewhere in the tank, which a 100% water change combined with a good vacuuming cannot completely eradicate (this is also why pathogens that normally need a host can still be present in a tank even after a thorough water change/vacuuming and bounce back, which I HAVE OBSERVED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS). While this is partly true, this is not entirely correct as most bacterial clouds find their source in other areas of the tank such as organic mulm. In fact this is well recognized by many aquarium professionals which is why most will tell you that a 100% water change will often NOT correct this problem. This happens to be one of the biggest complaints that clients, emails, etc have made, that their water change with vacuuming only temporarily solved their cloudy water problem because they did not remove all organics feeding this problem This does make sense if you are willing to listen to those that have conducted tests or others with experience with this and KNOW that no water change or gravel vacuuming is 100%, as both the UV Study showed and the many times client's had diseases that do need a host still bounce back after 100% water changes and gravel cleanings (in many of these tests these were water changes times two, with water drained/vacuumed, then filled, then repeat step one), as well as filter rinsings. You also make a good point as to the use of a water change lowers the risk, which I agreed with you early in this thread, yet this too keeps being brought back up. I am still not clear why you are so set on pushing a method that still has more risks (yes I agree the water change lowers this risk) AND is slower at jump starting the Nitrogen Cycle when there are other methods. As well you seem to disregard those such as murdock who have pointed out where you can find pure ammonia, which makes me wonder if you really are interested in this method. And finally, although I do not know the methods of others in my business that have used this method under many more conditions/tests than I have, I DO TRUST their experience and knowledge, and I think you should be open to others experience as well. As Eve stated and I have already, we can agree to disagree, but you do not seem to be willing to do even this. Yes you made excellent and intelligent points (that are definitely worthy of adding to the Nitrogen Cycle Article), such as the water changes as this certainly lowers the risk and can make this a more viable method, but does not alleviate it based the evidence and I certainly would not recommend this to a newbie that may not remove the shrimp in their rush to add fish or make a large water change. Honestly life is too short with my family and others that are more respectful of my time to go around and around with someone who is not willing to listen. So I am done replying here. Carl |
|
|
|
Post by nosoop4u246 on Mar 17, 2009 16:33:49 GMT -5
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. ... 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. ... 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. I have already stated on more than one point in this thread that there WAS a difference in controlled tests between a the 100% water change and the use of a UV Sterilizer which demonstrates that there still is a source somewhere in the tank, which a 100% water change combined with a good vacuuming cannot completely eradicate (this is also why pathogens that normally need a host can still be present in a tank even after a thorough water change/vacuuming and bounce back, which I HAVE OBSERVED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS). Actually, Carl, you never mentioned 100% water changes, which is why I was forced to constantly resurface that argument. Until this most recent post, you had mentioned no specifics as to the size of the water change (only "more than 50%"). I think we'll all agree that there is a massive difference between more than 50%, and 100%. If you had stated that 100% water changes still resulted in Saprolegnia rebounds in the very beginning, that argument of mine would have been dead in the water, and would also have killed my "ghost footprint" argument, eliminating two of my more persistent points that I had to keep bringing back because they were never specifically addressed. While this is partly true, this is not entirely correct as most bacterial clouds find their source in other areas of the tank such as organic mulm. In fact this is well recognized by many aquarium professionals which is why most will tell you that a 100% water change will often NOT correct this problem. This happens to be one of the biggest complaints that clients, emails, etc have made, that their water change with vacuuming only temporarily solved their cloudy water problem because they did not remove all organics feeding this problem I could very well be wrong here, but it seems to me that suspended bacteria are going to have a hard time directly extracting nutrients from something sitting under your gravel. I would agree that the detritus fuels the blooms as it decomposes-- releasing the necessary nutrients into the water column-- but not that it's the detritus itself (which is how your post came across; you may very well have meant the former, but this issue of semantics is coming back). This does make sense if you are willing to listen to those that have conducted tests or others with experience with this and KNOW that no water change or gravel vacuuming is 100%, as both the UV Study showed and the many times client's had diseases that do need a host still bounce back after 100% water changes and gravel cleanings (in many of these tests these were water changes times two, with water drained/vacuumed, then filled, then repeat step one), as well as filter rinsings. Again, you never actually stated that the water changes were 100%. You made several very general statements, which are what I based my next responses on. This chain of magnified vagueness is why I came off as unwilling to listen to your points-- I DID listen to your points, but because the points were rather lacking in specifics, my next set of arguments for MY points had to be equally or even more unspecific. This is why I kept bringing up water changes. I am still not clear why you are so set on pushing a method that still has more risks (yes I agree the water change lowers this risk) AND is slower at jump starting the Nitrogen Cycle when there are other methods. As well you seem to disregard those such as murdock who have pointed out where you can find pure ammonia, which makes me wonder if you really are interested in this method. And finally, although I do not know the methods of others in my business that have used this method under many more conditions/tests than I have, I DO TRUST their experience and knowledge, and I think you should be open to others experience as well. I am not pushing it. I am not trying to change your opinion on the matter either, as that seems to be an attempt bordering on futility. As I stated in my first post, I am merely trying to get clarification as to why you were so opposed to it, as well as point out that your article came off as overplaying the dangers of it (whether you meant for it to be that way, or not). I have acknoweldged many times that I would much prefer ammonia, and much prefer to recommend ammonia (I'm quite sure I've always listed ammonia as the primary method, with shrimp being less than ideal); I have also acknowledged why I don't (or can't) use ammonia. While the article Murdock provided was extremely informative (I have linked to it many times in several places online), I don't believe it had any information on where to buy ammonia (it presumably wasn't intended to), and the pharmacies around here do not carry ammonia, and I don't think we have any pharmaceutical supply houses. I have tried many times to find ammonia, as I mentioned, and have found nothing but that with surfactants, as I mentioned. Also, I have made a point, particuarly on the Internet, with businesses, and in the aquarium hobby in general, NOT to trust what people say just because of their position or status. Science is in a constant flux, and studies done fifteen years ago could very well have been eclipsed with more recent studies, taking into account other factors, looking at other solutions, or solving different variations of the problem. To simply accept something because it's what you're told seems quite foolish, as well as a very poor way to learn and progress in the hobby and in life. As Eve stated and I have already, we can agree to disagree, but you do not seem to be willing to do even this. Yes you made excellent and intelligent points, such as the water changes as this certainly lowers the risk and can make this a more viable method, but does not alleviate it based the evidence and I certainly would not recommend this to a newbie that may not remove the shrimp in their rush to add fish or make a large water change. Honestly life is too short with my family an others that are more respectful of my time to go around and around with someone who is not willing to listen. So I am done replying here. Yes, you produced evidence. However, that evidence was in no way exact, or even roughly exact. When you provide numbers like "more than 50%", you can't seriously expect me to fold up my argument and say, "you win." It was not an argument for the sake of arguing, it was a debate for the sake of learning, and, quite frankly, I feel like what you did try to convey was glazed over. I realize that you have a busy schedule, and you obviously have more to do in your day than sit at the computer typing up responses to this thread, but I don't think it's debatable that the support you provided was very general, and often lacking, which was not enough for me to reach the conclusion you seem to have written into your article. |
|
|
|
Post by jonv on Mar 17, 2009 21:10:30 GMT -5
I'm going to leave this thread after this last post, and with no finger pointing or blame laying or anything like that, this isn't what I'd quite hoped would have come out of this discussion, so I apologize to everyone for that. Whatever point things steered off course, doesn't much matter honestly, it just did, and I think it's just time to move forward from here is all.
Soop, I appreciate you giving the answers to what I was looking for and Carl as well for all the hard work you always put into things, while trying to juggle 20 balls at once. I wish everyone in the world was as selfless in what you give as you are. What I do think we have learned out out of this though are some good things.
The volume of change going into something can have an influence. I also feel this makes sense too. An analogy used in Forensics and Carl mentioned/echo'd this though, makes me personally wary of trying to use shrimp, in that say for example, you had a dead animal laying in the forest bed or in some place in the wild. While scavangers and other parasites might decay the body, so will things like Sap. and other fungus's and molds. But, you remove that dead body, (Take the organic host away) you still find traces of it in the footprint area it is in, and over time it spreads out and goes deeper into the soil.
So to relate that to a closed loop like a tank, we could do the 100% change to eliminate free floating stuff in the water column, and even vaccum out the gravel, but just as with any substrate, you can never get all the material. Some are sure to migrate as well into the filter bed. I'm just saying that basically any organic material used, be it shrimp of even a fillet, is going to open the door. Some open the door farther then others, but I can't see even the stauchest advocate of any method disagreeing that organic material opens the door. Once that door gets opened, it's extremely difficult to close 100% and that means a risk factor.
Risk factor is the driving force behind advocation of a fishless cycle in the beginning. The studies of the effects of nitrogen compounds on fish were found to be rather harsh and as over time, the use of ammonia and then shrimp and orangics and foods, to provide the fuel came into play, because, it cut down the risk as close to 0 as possible. Now we have the ever revolving door of science, and with Prime, you again, put the stress, risk and damage factors as close to 0 as you can using fish.
The bottom line what I'm getting at, is even shrimp have a risk factor that is above 0, which I think all posts have shown, is not really debateable. I believe that is the heart/essence of Carl's research and the basis of saying use of Shrimp, can very well be a poor idea. Precautions and measures, just as like Prime does, can be taken, but if the overall goal of fishless cycling, starting up a brand new tank from scratch, when established media is not an option, then we must realize that shrimp does pose a level of threat to carry in pathogens, and the methods to cut this from being a problem, would be counter productive too. If risk is the driving factor of fishless cycling, then I feel the best method by logic would have to be use of pure ammonia, or established media. That to me is the only way we can reduce the risk of any unecessary harm to fish in a new tank.
I hope my conclusions and synopsis of what I have taken out of this talk offends no one. I have no intent to offend anyone. Many forums have threads started, with good intentions, that begin to arrise things that were not intended. I know in a forum I attend, I have actually seen staff members go so far into persecution of a member who didn't agree with what the staff did, they actually cloned his account to pass off themselves as him to discredit him. I am happy to say, this forum will never slump to a level as that. We all have different view points and different ways of taking data we see, and applying it. Everyone has this right, it's a basic human freedom. But when things to progress beyond a discussion, even if view points oppose, to where caps and heated words could get used, it's going beyond constructiveness to be of use.
I abhor censorship. I personally am a person that lives in the NYC metro area, and one thing we are known for, is speaking what we think, directly. That's not always approved of in many families and sometimes, in society itself. Often times, people that are direct are labellled as rude, offensive, nasty, mean etc...I do not wish any lasting thoughts of myself, or any member of this forum, good, bad or neutral to reflect such a thought. At this point in the course of our discussion though, I am of the opinion, this thread should be locked. I do apolgize for any angered or hurt feelings that arrised out of this. I did ask soop to have an open discussion with Carl on this topic, so if there is blame to be had, it should be on me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeguy33 on Mar 18, 2009 13:51:08 GMT -5
very well put Jon. I as well agree this post should be frozen.....but not deleted. This is a perfect example of how a discussion on a forum such as this can excalate to such an extent. I am certain that Soop`s intent wasn`t to offend, but words can be a strong weapon even if spoken with all the right intent. We are all individuals here and in being so we all have our own thoughts on things. as was spoken earlier, before any more feelings are hurt, we have to agree to disagree. We are all to close here to have members not post or quit this forum. Everyone contributes and I for one consider all of you friends. In closing, I would like to commend Carl`s research and Soops ability to "ask why" , but for the sake of all of us, please , no one respond to this posting any more. lets carry on and learn from one another. thank you for listening to my rant....
|
|
?
