Dead Damsel and Cycling

[sliggy382]

Would a dead damsel fish help cycle a new tank?
I always hear you can cycle a new tank with a shrimp from the grocery store by letting it rot in it.

Are any of these true?

[fishman1069]

Yes and yes. You basically need something thats gonna break down and feed the tank ammonia to start your bacteria

[cramideas]

Yelp it will help get it going, not that you want the fish to die but if it happens it wont hurt the process.

[BAGGERZ13]

A lot of people think it's cruel to the fish to put it in there and have it die just to cycle the tank. There are a few different ways to do it without having to use a fish...

[heathlindner25]

I christen mine with alittle urine!

[FTDelta]

Raw uncooked shrimp works as well.

[reeferstace]

It is ethically wrong to cycle a tank with a live fish. Please use a different source for your nitrogenous waste.

[cloak]

If you don't want to use a piece of shrimp to cycle your tank, I'm sure your LFS would have no problem handing over a dead fish. They should be checking their tanks every morning for these.

[wooden_reefer]

I won't use dead whole fish as it make carry some parasite or undesirable bacteria esp inside the digestive tract of fish died from diseases.

Best protein source for decade is a shrimp, or some fish flesh from a large fish, I tend to think.

[wooden_reefer]

I christen mine with alittle urine!

The disadvantage of urine is quantity of ammonia unknown.

If I plan to do a 100% water change and cycle in a small container, I just urinate in it. Nitrite could be over 30 ppm, I don't care.

But if you plan to retain the water you cycle with, a known amount of ammonia is better. You won't "age" the water excessively. Just enough one or two shots of ammonia well timed is best.

[sponger0]

A lot of people think it's cruel to the fish to put it in there and have it die just to cycle the tank. There are a few different ways to do it without having to use a fish...

It is ethically wrong to cycle a tank with a live fish. Please use a different source for your nitrogenous waste.

The OP didnt say use a fish and kill it. He said use a dead fish. I think you read that wrong.

Yeah you read that wrong too lmao

[Sk8r]

You don't need ANYTHING. the dieoff in your live rock is completely sufficient. REmember what you're encouraging is microscopic: you won't see it. If you can't stand adding nothing at all, add enough flake fishfood daily to feed one guppy (one flake), and STILL expect a cycle of 4-8 weeks. You simply cannot get bacteria to propagate clear to the core of the rock in less time than that, and if you rush it, you can crash the tank.

[wooden_reefer]

You don't need ANYTHING. the dieoff in your live rock is completely sufficient. REmember what you're encouraging is microscopic: you won't see it. If you can't stand adding nothing at all, add enough flake fishfood daily to feed one guppy (one flake), and STILL expect a cycle of 4-8 weeks. You simply cannot get bacteria to propagate clear to the core of the rock in less time than that, and if you rush it, you can crash the tank.

There may or may not be enough dieoff. If the rock had been in the LFS submerged for a week before you bought it and the decay had happened at the LFS, there will be very little ammonia.

If the tank stinks very much you can be sure enough decay is happening; otherwise, there may well not be enough ammonia to cycle esp for many fish.

Plus, the whole idea of using decay from dead lives from LR to cycle is senseless; there are alternatives.

[wooden_reefer]

You don't need ANYTHING. the dieoff in your live rock is completely sufficient. REmember what you're encouraging is microscopic: you won't see it. If you can't stand adding nothing at all, add enough flake fishfood daily to feed one guppy (one flake), and STILL expect a cycle of 4-8 weeks. You simply cannot get bacteria to propagate clear to the core of the rock in less time than that, and if you rush it, you can crash the tank.

Nitrification is highly aerobic so only the sites near the more oxygenated areas will nitrification bacteria live.

"bacteria propagating to the core of LR" is not a part of cycling.

Cycling is nitrification only, not denitrification. Such is the definition and also has a reason. This is NOT to say that denitrification is not important, it is in the longer term.

You can introduce some fish when nitrification is complete, even if you have a basically reef tank in mind, even when denitrification is not yet well established.

The comprehesive ecological perspective has more bearing on long term maintenance.

If your interest is a reef tanlk with only a few small fish, you may consider long term ecological balance as more pressing.

Having nitrification and some livestock before denitrification is robust will not crash a tank. I 'd agree that if your interest is a reef tank you should not add too much livestock quickly.

[wooden_reefer]

In this hobby, it can be a mental handicap to always think of comprehesive ecological balance, nitrification and denitrification.

This is true especially in QT of fish. Nitrate is harmless to fish at concentration commonly encountered. There is much utility in nitrification alone without denitrification. Thus, LR is a poor medium of filtration in QT.

One should not think of ecology in a QT.

In a DT, ecology is of course of great long term significance, but one also should consider the timing of the correctness of the comprehesive ecological perspective.

[MrTuskfish]

In this hobby, it can be a mental handicap to always think of comprehesive ecological balance, nitrification and denitrification.

This is true especially in QT of fish. Nitrate is harmless to fish at concentration commonly encountered. There is much utility in nitrification alone without denitrification. Thus, LR is a poor medium of filtration in QT.

One should not think of ecology in a QT.

In a DT, ecology is of course of great long term significance, but one also should consider the timing of the correctness of the comprehesive ecological perspective.

Damn! That's just what i was going to say!

[sliggy382]

The OP didnt say use a fish and kill it. He said use a dead fish. I think you read that wrong.

Yeah you read that wrong too lmao


Thanks Sponger--you saved me the time of saying that LOL
As I stated, the fish was dead already; I didn't kill it.

[reeferstace]

My apologies to the OP since I misinterpreted what was said. Sorry.

[CoasterOfLuv]

I had both my 75 and my 30 running for a week before I put a Damsel in which is still pretty soon and neither died. You're tank would IMO have to be very unprepared to kill a damsel and thats kinda cruel :(

[sleepydoc]

+1 on using another source besides the damsel. it would certainly work, but the last thing you want to do is introduce velvet or some other nasty disease.

[sliggy382]

My apologies to the OP since I misinterpreted what was said. Sorry.

No worries, I appreciate the input

[sliggy382]

I had both my 75 and my 30 running for a week before I put a Damsel in which is still pretty soon and neither died. You're tank would IMO have to be very unprepared to kill a damsel and thats kinda cruel :(

I or my tank didn't kill it. :) When I purchased it from the LPS I noticed it wasn't swimming right in the bag when I got to the checkout. I think when they got it from the tank at the LPS, they must have squished it or something. It was dead by the time I got home. I didn't say anything to the employees, I just took it home hoping it would survive. I probably should have just gotten another one before I paid for it.

I was hoping for the best though... :?