Quote:
Originally Posted by Madratter
The amount of water change would depend on the amount of Nitrate, Phosphate, and organics you have in the water after cycling. The percentage of water replaced will roughly equal the percentage depletion of the above. So chose your target level and do the appropriate water change.
I say roughly because phosphate can bind with your rock, and then leach back out, etc.
Example, after cycling you have nitrates of 10 ppm. You desire to get them no higher than 5 ppm for your application. In that case, a 50% water change is in order.
---
As for the argument about whether cycling a QT tank is necessary and whether cycling is in any way related to disease, here are my two cents. A non-cycled QT is going to generate ammonia that is going to stay in the water until the QT tank starts to cycle. That is going to stress your fish. And stress is not going to be good for fish and can result in either more severe disease, or a fish developing disease that otherwise would not have.
In other words, I'm firmly on the side that says cycling can be related to disease.
|
For the first, if your interest is in quite a few fish, robust cycling that generates 15-20 ppm nitrate during cycling is still worthwhile even if you don't cycle the medium separately but in the tank.
On the second, QT without nitrification established in advance is simply impossible. Ammonia is toxic to fish even at low levels, one cannot ideally change water frequenctly enough.
Eradication of ich in fish takes eight weeks in QT, active treatment. 8 weeks of WC/Amquel is not a plan.
Those who really believe in QT simply would not imagine a QT without nitrification.
If you treatment against ich in QT for just two weeks and then put the fish in DT, the risk of an ick outbreak later is not low.
QT without nitrification is something that should be avoided very deliberately. Very bad situation.
10/06/2009, 02:38 PM
