A Guide to the Nitrogen Cycle

A successful freshwater aquarium is more than a display; it is a complex, self-sustaining ecosystem. For a hobbyist, the most critical responsibility is maintaining the "invisible" part of the tank: the Nitrogen Cycle. Understanding this process is the difference between a thriving environment and a failing one.

---

The Science of Nitrification

The nitrogen cycle is the biological process in which beneficial bacteria convert toxic waste into safer compounds. This is known as biological filtration. These bacteria do not live in the water itself, but colonize the surfaces of your filter media, substrate, and decor.

1. Ammonia (NH3)

Every inhabitant in your aquarium produces waste. As fish respire through their gills and organic matter (like uneaten food) decays, it releases Ammonia.

• The Risk: Ammonia is highly toxic. It causes chemical burns to the gills and skin, leading to severe stress and eventual organ failure.

• The Solution: In a healthy system, a bacterial colony called Nitrosomonas consumes the Ammonia, converting it into Nitrite.

2. Nitrite (NO2)

Nitrite is the second stage of the cycle. While it is a byproduct of "working" bacteria, it is still a potent toxin.

• The Risk: Nitrite enters the fish’s bloodstream and prevents it from carrying oxygen, effectively causing the fish to suffocate regardless of how much oxygen is in the water.

• The Solution: A second group of bacteria, Nitrobacter, colonizes the tank to process Nitrite into Nitrate.

3. Nitrate (NO3)

Nitrate is the final byproduct of the nitrification process. It is significantly less harmful than Ammonia or Nitrite, but it is not benign.

• The Management: In the closed environment of an aquarium, Nitrate levels will continually rise. Because there are rarely enough anaerobic conditions to convert Nitrate into gas, it must be removed through regular water changes.

• The Ideal: Aim to keep Nitrates below 20–40 ppm to ensure long-term health and prevent algae outbreaks.

---

Professional Management Protocols

To ensure your biological filter remains stable, follow these essential guidelines:

• Maintain the Bio-Media: Your filter media houses the majority of your tank’s beneficial bacteria. To avoid a "cycle crash," never rinse your sponges or ceramic rings in untreated tap water, as chlorine will sterilize the colony. You should rinse the media in either a container of dechlorinated tap water or water removed from the aquarium. If you are concerned about a dip in bacterial activity, adding a supplemental dose of beneficial bacteria or a high-quality water conditioner during maintenance provides an extra layer of safety.

• Avoid Overloading: Adding too many fish at once creates a "bio-load" that the existing bacteria cannot process fast enough. Always introduce new inhabitants gradually to allow the bacterial colonies to scale up naturally.

• Test Regularly: A tank is officially "cycled" when your test results consistently show 0 ppm Ammonia and 0 ppm Nitrite, with a measurable reading of Nitrate.

---

Essential Equipment Checklist

1. Water Testing Kit (The Most Important Tool)

You cannot see ammonia or nitrite. A liquid test kit is generally more accurate than paper strips.

• Recommendation: A master test kit that measures Ammonia (NH3), Nitrite (NO2), Nitrate (NO3), and pH.

• Why: This is the only way to know exactly which stage of the cycle you are in.

2. Water Conditioner (Dechlorinator)

Before starting the nitrogen cycle, you must understand the chemistry of the water you are using. Every water source presents different challenges:

• Municipal Tap Water: Treated with chlorine or chloramines which act as biocides that will instantly destroy your beneficial bacteria.

• Well Water: Generally chlorine-free, but can contain high minerals, heavy metals, or existing nitrates.

• Home Filtration Systems: RO systems or softeners alter hardness and chlorine but may strip out essential minerals bacteria need.

The Professional Standard: Never assume your water is safe. Always use a high-quality water conditioner and test your source water before it enters the aquarium. A lot of people like Seachem Prime, but I prefer Hikari Ultimate as I find Prime has a nauseating smell.

• Pro-Tip: Look for water conditioners that "detoxify" ammonia and nitrite for 24–48 hours rather than removing them entirely. This keeps the water safe for fish while allowing the bacteria to "eat" and grow.

• What to Avoid: Do not use Aquarium Salt or Zeolite during the initial cycling process. Aquarium Salt acts as a cleaning agent that slows bacterial growth; Zeolite removes the ammonia your bacteria need to survive, effectively stalling the cycle.

• The Golden Rule: You can use salt for treatments or Zeolite for emergencies on an established aquarium later. However, never use them together. Salt recharges Zeolite, causing it to instantly dump all trapped ammonia back into your water.

3. An Ammonia Source

The bacteria need "food" to grow. If there is no ammonia, the cycle will never start.

• Options: Pure "Reagent Grade" Ammonium Chloride, a very small number of hardy fish, or a daily pinch of fish food.

4. Biological Filter Media

Bacteria need a "house" to live in. Use high-porosity media like ceramic rings, bio-foams, or lava rocks to provide maximum surface area for the colonies to grow.

5. Bottled Beneficial Bacteria (Optional but Recommended)

"Seeding" the tank can significantly speed up the process. Add this directly into the filter. I personally like Seachem Stability.

6. A Consistent Heat Source

Nitrifying bacteria are living organisms that grow faster in stable, warm water.

• Requirement: An adjustable aquarium heater.

• Goal: Keep the water between 75°F–82°F (24°C–28°C). Note: Research the specific requirements of the fish you purchase, as they have varied preferences.

Twenty Years of Rescues That Weren't

For nearly two decades, millions flocked to the Georgia Aquarium, marveling at the majestic whale sharks gliding through the Ocean Voyager exhibit. When Taroko, one of their iconic males, was euthanized in August 2025, the aquarium, as expected, issued a statement about his long life and the scientific contributions he made as an "ambassador" for his species.

But what if I told you that the story of Taroko and his fellow captive whale sharks is far more complex, riddled with a profound irony that stretches across oceans, costs millions, and continues to fuel a heated ethical debate? Let's dive deep into the true cost of "saving" a whale shark.

The "Rescue": A Last-Minute Leap Before the Ban

The narrative spun by the Georgia Aquarium has always been one of rescue: these magnificent creatures were plucked from certain death in Taiwanese fish markets. And to a degree, this is true. In the early 2000s, Taiwan had a legal quota for whale shark harvests, where these gentle giants were destined for meat markets. When the aquarium acquired its first sharks, including Taroko and Yushan, they were indeed facing the butcher's knife.

However, the timing of their acquisition, particularly Taroko's, reveals a strategic maneuver more than a spontaneous act of mercy. By early 2007, the Taiwanese government had announced a full ban on whale shark capture, sale, and export, effective January 1, 2008. The aquarium, fully aware of this closing window, made a deliberate "leap." Taroko and Yushan arrived in Atlanta in June 2007 – just six months before the ban would have made their acquisition impossible.

This wasn't a desperate dash to save a single stranded animal; it was a carefully executed, multi-million dollar commercial transaction, leveraging the last legal opportunity to stock one of the world's most impressive exhibits.

The Multi-Million Dollar Paradox: Cost vs. Conservation

Let’s talk numbers, because this is where the irony truly bites.

The logistical feat of transporting these behemoths—requiring custom-built, 25-ton tanks and a modified Boeing 747 cargo jet—cost an estimated $1 million to $2 million per pair of sharks. This doesn't even include the purchase price from the Taiwanese fishermen or the ongoing operational costs of feeding, filtering, and maintaining a 6.3-million-gallon exhibit for two decades.

Now, consider the alternative: At that same time, retrofitting a single Taiwanese fishing net with "escape hatches" for whale sharks costs less than $5,000. So, for the price of flying just one shark to Atlanta, the aquarium could have funded modifications for 60 to 70 nets, potentially saving dozens, if not hundreds, of wild sharks from entanglement – the very fate that led to their market capture.

The Georgia Aquarium, like many institutions, does fund field conservation. However, their tax filings often reveal that the vast majority of their "conservation" budget is directed towards the internal care of their own animals and exhibits, rather than direct, impactful efforts to save wild populations. The economics are clear: one "ambassador" in a tank generates millions in ticket sales; hundreds of saved sharks swimming freely in the ocean do not.

The "Non-Releasable" Loophole: Jebbie's Story

The argument for captivity often hinges on the idea that these sharks become "non-releasable" after years in captivity. They supposedly lack the muscle tone for deep-sea diving, the navigation skills for migration, and the foraging instincts to survive.

But then there's Jebbie. Acquired in 2021, Jebbie was the first whale shark brought to the aquarium in 14 years, long after the Taiwanese ban. He was touted as a true "rescue," found entangled in a net and deemed "unfit for release." Yet, this shark—too injured to survive in the wild—was strong enough to endure a 30-hour, 8,000-mile journey in a specially outfitted cargo plane, constantly monitored by vets and life support systems.

The glaring contradiction highlights the ethical tightrope aquariums walk. If a shark is robust enough to survive such an arduous journey, was it truly too fragile to be released locally after careful rehabilitation? Or was the "non-releasable" label a convenient justification for filling an exhibit that had dwindled to just two sharks after the deaths of Alice and Trixie in 2020-2021?

The Inadequate Habitat: Why Even 6 Million Gallons Isn't Enough

The scientific data supports this skepticism. While the Ocean Voyager exhibit is a technological marvel, it is fundamentally inadequate for a whale shark.

• Muscle Atrophy: Wild whale sharks are constant, long-distance swimmers, diving thousands of feet. In a tank, they swim repetitive circles, leading to asymmetrical muscle development and chronic physical stress. Blood analysis reveals higher levels of creatine phosphokinase (CPK), indicating muscle damage, and elevated cortisol (a stress hormone) in captive sharks.

• Lost Instincts: Crucial homarine levels, vital for cellular health in the deep ocean, plummet in captivity. Their gut microbiome shifts, losing microbes essential for deep-diving and nutrient processing. Their natural navigation and foraging instincts atrophy.

• Life Expectancy: In the wild, whale sharks can live up to 70-150 years. In captivity, the record is just 26 years. Taroko, at 18 years in the tank, died far short of his natural lifespan.

The claim that a tank is "adequate" is often based on the shark simply being alive and appearing calm to visitors, not on its complex biological needs.

The Lasting Legacy: A Call for True Conservation

With Taroko's passing in 2025, and only Yushan and Jebbie remaining (likely the last whale sharks the Georgia Aquarium will ever acquire due to heightened international protections), the institution is at a critical juncture.

The "300 annual deaths" in Taiwan that once made headlines are finally starting to decrease, not because sharks are being flown to Atlanta, but because conservationists are working with local fishermen to implement real-time reporting systems and outfit nets with escape hatches. This demonstrates that on-site, proactive conservation is far more effective and ethical than expensive, long-distance "rescues" that prioritize display over true freedom.

Taroko provided valuable scientific data and inspired millions. But his life, and the lives of the other captive whale sharks, serve as a stark reminder: the act of "saving" an individual from a market, only to place it in an environment that ultimately shortens its life and renders it biologically unfit for the wild, is a complex ethical dilemma. It's a costly paradox that, for many, underscores the difference between rescue for display and true, systemic conservation.

It’s time to ask: Is paying millions for a "billion-dollar whale shark" truly conservation, or is it merely a financially lucrative way to fill a tank, leaving the real problems of the ocean largely unaddressed?

GloFish Facts

If there's one little fish that tends to get a bad reputation in the fish community it's none other than the GloFish so, today I'm here to debunk a few things.

First off, these glowing freshwater fish are generally just danios, barbs, and tetras that have been genetically modified with jellyfish DNA while still unhatched from their egg. When a GloFish breeds its offspring will retain their parents glowing abilities, but if you're trying to mix neon shades through breeding than it's anyone's guess as to what color the offspring will be (I'd assume they take the most dominant gene in terms of colorization rather than combining two different shades). While you can breed these fish they actually have a patent which makes them illegal for you to sell. Therefore the company selling Glofish can technically say that the fish you purchased was not injected directly themselves, but the original fish they created was (although I noticed they don't bluntly state that on signs at Petco).

GloFish at Petco

The GloFish was supposedly created back in 2003 to help detect pollution in water as the GloFish company claims that when these fish are exposed to polluted water containing certain metals, etc it will cause them to glow, while in safe water they wouldn't. For those in the aquarium hobby, you'll notice the fishes glowing effects under a fluorescent light so, no polluted water needed. Also, these fish don't really glow as they actually just absorb light and re-emit it.

A few other concerns I noticed online is the introduction of these fish into the wild and their effects on the environment while also noting that certain temperatures may result in killing these tropical fish while still possibly leaving a few remaining if they happen to find better temperatures in certain areas of their habitat. According to the GloFish company, their fish pose no further risk to the environment than their non-glo counterparts as the DNA gene they're injected with comes from a natural source (With that said I'm going to assume this jellyfish gene came from a freshwater jellyfish rather than saltwater since these are not at all saltwater fish), but it is said that you shouldn't consume these fish (as with most ornamental aquarium fish). Therefore it is said that these pose no threat to wildlife if consumed (I guess that's a different story if a person consumes one directly). According to the Florida Division of Aquaculture, these fish pose no threat to their environment in accordance with the FDA (which can really be a whole different topic on its own but we won't dive that deep in this post).

According to PetMD these fish have the same lifespan as their non-glo family members which is around 3.5 to 5 years, and they require the same habit and diet. Overall, if all this is, in fact, true then there's really no reason not to invest in our modified GloFish friends unless you just enjoy the fish in its original non-modified glory. In which case, there are more naturally neon-colored fish in the wild such as the ever popular neon or cardinal tetra.

When to Hand Feed Fish

This post is based solely on my experience and opinions with hand feeding fish versus using something like an auto feeder. There are some fish keepers who are big fans of having their fish approach them for food. I personally do not like hand feeding fish for numerous reasons although hand feeding a fish may not be completely unavoidable depending on the fish you are keeping.

Why should you stop hand feeding?

1. Bare hands touching food or the fish could cause illness in your fish from bacteria (wear gloves or pour food into its habitat).
2. It's not natural for all types of fish to approach something that could harm them (fish tend to associate outside tank/pond movement with food so, they could associate a cat, raccoon, or something else possibly harmful to them as delivering their food source as well). If you have schooling fish that approach you for food they can manage to jump from the aquarium in the huddled excitement.
3. A predatory/carnivorous fish could end up biting you during feeding.

When should you hand feed?

1. When you can't use an auto feeder to feed your fish (not all food may fit or work in a feeder).
2. If you choose to have your fish approach you... all the time (although a fish is not a dog so why make it act like one).
3. When you have predatory/carnivorous fish that require food movement to attack/eat their prey (try to use tongs or something similar during feeding to avoid introducing bacteria and keeping yourself from getting nipped).

Doctors Foster and Smith & USPS - Review

I have ordered from the website Doctors Foster and Smith once or twice in the past and I don't remember having as many issues as I have been experiencing recently. I am not even sure it's completely their fault so much as it is USPS but here's my review with what I experienced over the course of several weeks in regards to a recent purchase (an item I have purchased from them before in fact).

On July 10th 2017 I made a single item purchase on the DFS website. According to USPS, my item should have arrived July 15th but at the latest, I was expecting it to arrive by July 19th (based upon the DFS shipping time frame). When my item did not arrive I decided to contact the DFS customer service on their website about my item not arriving and that I checked the tracking on USPS and it appeared stuck at a sorting facility, etc. I then got an automated number from the DFS site stating "Your Question has been Submitted" and then it gave me a reference number stating "A member of our support team will get back to you soon" and that was on July 21st.

On July 22nd at 12:08 am I finally received notification from USPS that my package had finally arrived at a different sorting facility. Then at 2:08 am, it had arrived at a distribution center and at 5:53 am for some reason it was still at the same 12:08 am facility, very strange. Along with that last notification, USPS stated that "The package is delayed and will not be delivered by the expected delivery date. An updated delivery date will be provided when available. Your item arrived at our ---- destination facility on July 22nd, 2017 at 5:53 am. The item is currently in transit to the destination". So on the 23rd, I did not see anything again from USPS which is probably because it was Sunday so, by Monday (the 24th) I was hoping to receive another notification from USPS as there was now no definite date of when my package would be arriving. Another odd thing that happened was that my local USPS called me on the 20th when I only signed up for text notifications and all his message said was how the item has not yet arrived at the facility and that I could contact him if I needed to and he left me a number. Personally, from a business perspective, I always prefer to have things in writing (maybe because I'm a Blogger) but when it comes to showing proof of events that happened I feel it's more reliable to an extent (I've watched Judge Judy, haha).

So back to DFS with that reference number they gave me stating how they would get back to me soon. I sent them a notification on the 21st in regards to my order and by the morning of the 24th, they finally got back to me. They were very nice about the situation and told me they would pay back my shipping costs and if I didn't receive my item by the 26th to contact them again. Luckily for DFS my item finally arrived before their new date. Worst case if I didn't hear from USPS or DFS that I would have sent my problem over to PayPal since I purchased through them and from my years of experience it is usually better at solving such online payment issues which would have at least gave me my money back from DFS. When my product did arrive everything in my package was fine, and I really don't know why USPS was holding the package as it was only a MagFox that I had ordered. Overall, my DFS experience went well but USPS has let me down numerous times now and I'm really glad it wasn't a package of live fish or something similar.

Treating Eye Cloud

When it comes to "eye cloud" or "cloudy eye" it is said to happen due to a shift in low pH; dietary deficiency (lacking in Vitamin A); bacterial/fungal infection; or the presence of ammonia. Personally, I feel this is more related to a possible bacterial/fungal infection. What I found to work well as a quick remedy is API MelaFix which is used to treat bacterial infections. MelaFix contains tea tree oil which is often used as an antifungal and it also helps to repair damaged fins, ulcers, and open wounds.

Eye Cloud

Eye Cloud looks similar to fogged up water goggles, as it's just a smokey looking film over the fishes eye/s (in the image here you can see my fish Boba with some minor eye cloud appearing). It may be very likely that a fish that gets eye cloud continues to have some reoccurrences of this happening again in the future. Some other remedies I have come across online but not yet tried myself are Tetracycline Hydrochloride; Nitrofurazone; Sodium Sulfathiazole; Sodium Sulfamethazine; Sodium Sulfacetamide; Victoria Green; and Acriflavine. Nitrofurazone is the only medication I'm familiar with using when it comes to goldfish so, I would probably start with that if you're not having luck using MelaFix to clear up the eye cloud as this should clear up in a week.