One year of Bacteria Powered Growth

[ronnie]

For some of us, there's also many ways of failing

Turn the L’s into lessons and there is no failure. Only growth! (Stolen from Cardi B haha)

 

[SunnyX]

Good morning, all. Looking for your support today. I, as well as four other amazing reefers have been selected as finalists to compete against other reefers in a coral grow out competition. I am certain that with my methods and experience, I can come out on top and hopefully help others by demonstrating my actions along the way. I am a big proponent of carbon dosing and the power of bacteria; now's the time to show everyone the coral growth that can be achieved with it.

If you deem my system worthy, please vote for #1 at the link below.

LINK TO VOTE

 

[Troylee]

Wow this thread is all over the place! Haha…. I’ve implemented the stones and changed my bacteria source to zeo back from mb7… over night I saw a huge difference in water clarity and that’s prolly because I got a more diverse bacteria population now.. it’s been almost a week and so far so good! My zeolites haven’t built up a ton of mulm yet as the bacteria needs to colonize and I got figure out the perfect flow rate.. I’m excited for what’s to come and so far so good!

 

[UtahReefer]

Hello,

When posting my images and success I will also post what I dose as that is often the first question asked.

What I dose alone will not achieve success. There are many things that go into a successful reef, and it is incumbent on all to do their own research and conduct their own experiments. No one should blindly be adding products to their aquariums simply based on what another is doing. Our systems are complex and each one is unique. What works for me may not work for others, as we have different goals and capabilities. I know that I could take just about any methodology out there and use it successfully, but the bacteria driven method has produced the best results with the least amount of work(for ME).

You do have a point, and I don't take your comments as criticism. Perhaps my assumption that reefers are doing their research before dosing is wrong, and its something that I will work more to point out. My recommendations to all before jumping into something like this is to take it slowly, make only one change at a time, and look/observe for issues before taking the next step.

There are many potions out there, and we don't understand everything that they do. However, I am confident in what I dose and have no problem recommending that others do the same as I have been using them for many years now with great results. At the end of the day it is the responsibly of the reefer to do their own research and to ask questions before dosing. To that end I try and make myself available to assist.

Since we're on the topic of guidelines and understanding everything that goes into a reef, lets discuss the current epidemic of testing: ICP.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I don’t believe that ICP testing is necessary. Furthermore, I believe that this testing is to the detriment of reefers, especially the novices who are just getting in. As another here pointed out, it is silly to test for things that we cant control or know what the implications are for adjusting of those values. Maybe my thought process is off, being an old school reefer who does very minimal tests, but what I have found from fielding countless questions from reefers is that they are being setup for failure being told that they must hit certain numbers or parameters with their systems. I have reefers losing sleep over their PO4/NO3 values, when they should be more concerned with the observations being conducted on a daily basis with the actual system. Things like coral colors, frequency of glass cleaning, sand bed color, and overall coral growth are goo indicators to follow. The reefers are sweating over the values of molybdenum and zinc when they don’t even have a firm grasp yet on the hobby at large.

Personally, I only test for ALK, PH, TEMP, and SG. That’s it. I couldn’t tell you what my nutrient values are as I only tested them one time to dial the system in a year ago. However, I can tell when to adjust my dosing/feeding based on the physical observations. Now, I am not advocating or recommending my style of testing(or lack thereof) to others, but what we need to see is a return to basics. Stick to measuring PH, ALK, CA, SG, NO3, and PO4. Beyond that, it gets too complicated and sends novice reefers on a wild goose chase. The ICP tests have there place in the hobby, but in my opinion it should only be used to diagnose an issue after all other methods of observation and testing have been performed. I know some will say that regular testing is good as a preventative measure, but if the system is run and maintained correctly you shouldn’t end up with major issues down the line. And frankly, with the epidemic of testing we have in the hobby in its current state we could use less of it right now. Again, not a popular opinion right now but I will stand by it. 25+ years of success reefing and not a single ICP test done.

My point here is that you don't need to know how the sausage is made to enjoy or reap its benefits. If the product has been shown to work by multiple users, and yielded good results, and has a solid track record of safety that is enough for me to give it a shot and experiment on my system. Again, don't jump into something blindly without doing your own research, but at the same time don't overthink it.

We have plenty of scientists and people focusing on every reef parameter on this forum, but unfortunately not many of them have systems that we would like to emulate or desire.

-Sonny

You are "right on the money" with this post Sonny. Those of us that use bac and carbon dose can relate. IF you are using a system that works you get a feel for your reef. I like you rarely test for nutrients because observation of my system tells me what's going on. It's a great hobby and as you know many have found a level of success in a variety of ways. There just seems to be this undying resistance in some circles to bacteria / carbon. In my humble options, bacteria keeps the ocean's thriving and it just makes sense.

 

[Shevlin77]

your tank is awesome. This roughy 14 months of growth for me. I don’t dose anything except neo nitro and neo phos. Im sure I could get some more with carbon but not sure it’s worth it for me?

 

[Superlightman]

Hello,

All of my past systems ran without Zeolites and did great. You really don't need the stones. It was just something that I wanted to try out and see if any benefits existed. The main advantages that I have found with the Zeolites is less water changes and accelerated coral growth.

The second one there, coral growth, is advantageous based on your situation. For me, the coral growth is a pain to deal with. The constant pruning to maintain the reefs aesthetics is troublesome.

Do you have a skimmer? You need a way to export the excess bacteria that is not consumed via the corals.

-Sonny

did it change something in the colors compared to your tanks that had not the zeolite or it is just about keep nutrients in check?

 

[SunnyX]

did it change something in the colors compared to your tanks that had not the zeolite or it is just about keep nutrients in check?

Hello, more than anything, it improved growth. Colors remained relatively unchanged.

 

[Superlightman]

Hello, more than anything, it improved growth. Colors remained relatively unchanged.

thank, can we explain how it can make more growth ?

 

[SunnyX]

thank, can we explain how it can make more growth ?

Increased growth by providing additional fuel(food) for the corals. The corals can derive most of their nutritional requirements from bacteria alone.

Its clearly evident that the corals are responding as they will release feeding tentacles once the bacteria is released into the system.

The system is not without its fault, and without adequate input of nutrient(fish food), you can quickly bottom out PO4.

-Sonny

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Science is great, but I don't like to get lost in the weeds or chase numbers. It is for this very reason that I test very few things in the system. Lab tests tell me one thing, my experiences and results tell another. I test things out in the system, and if they work, I keep adding them.

I don’t feel like wading into any other aspect of this thread, but to me, this is emblematic of the growing distrust of science and why that can be an issue.

The problem here is that you don’t actually know why your method works, or if it’s even your method that is producing results. It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that you have reached. You don’t actually have any data because you aren’t changing any independent variables, and if you do have data, you would have no way of determining if it’s significant. You’re simply making qualitative observations, and you don’t really have anything to compare your results to.

We can poo-poo science all we want, but a scientific approach to this would have tested this by using multiple different levels of your specific independent variable against a control, and then would have taken all that data and conducted at least some statistical analysis to determine significance.

This ‘I did this and got this result, so screw what the science has found’ approach is fine…but inferring the science is flawed because you got a different result is really short-sighted.

 

[SunnyX]

I don’t feel like wading into any other aspect of this thread, but to me, this is emblematic of the growing distrust of science and why that can be an issue.

The problem here is that you don’t actually know why your method works, or if it’s even your method that is producing results. It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that you have reached. You don’t actually have any data because you aren’t changing any independent variables, and if you do have data, you would have no way of determining if it’s significant. You’re simply making qualitative observations, and you don’t really have anything to compare your results to.

We can poo-poo science all we want, but a scientific approach to this would have tested this by using multiple different levels of your specific independent variable against a control, and then would have taken all that data and conducted at least some statistical analysis to determine significance.

This ‘I did this and got this result, so screw what the science has found’ approach is fine…but inferring the science is flawed because you got a different result is really short-sighted.

caveat emptor.

I don't claim to be expert or scientist. I simply build beautiful and very successful reef systems. People will ask how I achieve my results and I comply. Its as simple as that.

The truth of the matter is that there is a fine line to walk, and these days, with the advent of ICP testing, the hobby has become a minefield. Reefers are chasing numbers instead of focusing on the simplest of aspects in this hobby. Namely, lighting flow, natural biology and filtration.

Perhaps we should be focusing more on these items than what the ICP test has to say. After all, my system is a prime example that you don't need to follow certain parameters and guidelines set out by science. Because according to the literature, I should not be as successful as I am with SPS while having a PO4 level that consistently runs at 0.60 and can at times reach 1.0. I'm sure that if I pulled an ICP test there would be a number of parameters that are too low or high by scientific standards. But, my coral growth is almost second to none. Am I an anomaly? I don't believe so.

All I am getting at is that we should be focusing more on nature and less on what the ICP tests tell us. I cant state how many reefers have now come to me, after destroying their systems by trying to get a parameter up to par with what science tells us.

Again, I am not at all discounting science, I love it, but we have come to a point where we focus so much on numbers that we lose sight of the overall picture.

If the corals are growing, and the overall health of the system looks good, who cares what the ICP test says. I certainly don't.

-Sonny

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

caveat emptor.

I don't claim to be expert or scientist. I simply build beautiful and very successful reef systems. People will ask how I achieve my results and I comply. Its as simple as that.

The truth of the matter is that there is a fine line to walk, and these days, with the advent of ICP testing, the hobby has become a minefield. Reefers are chasing numbers instead of focusing on the simplest of aspects in this hobby. Namely, lighting flow, natural biology and filtration.

Perhaps we should be focusing more on these items than what the ICP test has to say. After all, my system is a prime example that you don't need to follow certain parameters and guidelines set out by science. Because according to the literature, I should not be as successful as I am with SPS while having a PO4 level that consistently runs at 0.60 and can at times reach 1.0. I'm sure that if I pulled an ICP test there would be a number of parameters that are too low or high by scientific standards. But, my coral growth is almost second to none. Am I an anomaly? I don't believe so.

All I am getting at is that we should be focusing more on nature and less on what the ICP tests tell us. I cant state how many reefers have now come to me, after destroying their systems by trying to get a parameter up to par with what science tells us.

Again, I am not at all discounting science, I love it, but we have come to a point where we focus so much on numbers that we lose sight of the overall picture.

If the corals are growing, and the overall health of the system looks good, who cares what the ICP test says. I certainly don't.

-Sonny

I don’t disagree with any of this. Maybe I just misinterpreted your comment.

 

[SunnyX]

I don’t disagree with any of this. Maybe I just misinterpreted your comment.

No worries at all. Sometimes it easier to talk things out as some of my comments can sometimes be left open to interpretation.

Happy reefing!

-Sonny

 

[EliMelly]

I don’t feel like wading into any other aspect of this thread, but to me, this is emblematic of the growing distrust of science and why that can be an issue.

The problem here is that you don’t actually know why your method works, or if it’s even your method that is producing results. It’s a post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that you have reached. You don’t actually have any data because you aren’t changing any independent variables, and if you do have data, you would have no way of determining if it’s significant. You’re simply making qualitative observations, and you don’t really have anything to compare your results to.

We can poo-poo science all we want, but a scientific approach to this would have tested this by using multiple different levels of your specific independent variable against a control, and then would have taken all that data and conducted at least some statistical analysis to determine significance.

This ‘I did this and got this result, so screw what the science has found’ approach is fine…but inferring the science is flawed because you got a different result is really short-sighted.

I mean he has tons of experience in the hobby and his tanks speak for themselves.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

I mean he has tons of experience in the hobby and his tanks speak for themselves.

So do I. But I also know that I’m simply speculating about what is generating specific outcomes without doing any actual research.

For instance, he mentions that he routinely has PO4 levels at or above 0.6ppm. Is there proof that the bacteria is causing the growth and not the PO4?

A lot of tanks get amazing growth without dosing bacteria. There’s only one way to know for sure, but nobody here is using actual scientific investigation to figure this stuff out. Just anecdotal experiences from a single tank. And I wasn’t calling OP out…just commenting on his comment regarding science.

 

[Troylee]

So do I. But I also know that I’m simply speculating about what is generating specific outcomes without doing any actual research.

For instance, he mentions that he routinely has PO4 levels at or above 0.6ppm. Is there proof that the bacteria is causing the growth and not the PO4?

A lot of tanks get amazing growth without dosing bacteria. There’s only one way to know for sure, but nobody here is using actual scientific investigation to figure this stuff out. Just anecdotal experiences from a single tank. And I wasn’t calling OP out…just commenting on his comment regarding science.

He’s not the only tank! I’ve followed his foot steps and my tank has took off! A few people have taken his methods and came up with all sorts of coral foods now that are bacterial driven! Check out crt reef tank and I just saw tusi is testing his bacteria out also.

 

[Superlightman]

but it still would be really very interesting to know regularly the parameters, nitrate, phosphate., even ICP, even if you changes nothing because it will show us what works for you and maybe also debunk some claims and show that probably your water not need to in the ICP RANGE . Please do some ICP for us we are curious : -)

 

[SunnyX]

but it still would be really very interesting to know regularly the parameters, nitrate, phosphate., even ICP, even if you changes nothing because it will show us what works for you and maybe also debunk some claims and show that probably your water not need to in the ICP RANGE . Please do some ICP for us we are curious : -)

Hello,

I may end up running an ICP test just to see exactly what is going on in my system.

-Sonny

 

[Ghostbuster]

Hello,

All of my past systems ran without Zeolites and did great. You really don't need the stones. It was just something that I wanted to try out and see if any benefits existed. The main advantages that I have found with the Zeolites is less water changes and accelerated coral growth.

The second one there, coral growth, is advantageous based on your situation. For me, the coral growth is a pain to deal with. The constant pruning to maintain the reefs aesthetics is troublesome.

Do you have a skimmer? You need a way to export the excess bacteria that is not consumed via the corals.

-Sonny

Good morning Sonny,
I’m about to order All For Reef, NP Bacto-Balance, and ZEObak. Trying to emulate your routine. The last couple weeks I’ve been using the Calcium Carbonate to clean the aquarium. Also using a generic bacteria (Aquavitro Seed @ about 1-2 ml per/day) to get started. Was also thinking of buying a zeovit reactor but the ones available seem to have poor reviews because of too much flow and pebbles falling through the holes in the reactor. Maybe I’ll be fine without using a reactor… Thanks for your videos and helpful info!

 

[Troylee]

Good morning Sonny,
I’m about to order All For Reef, NP Bacto-Balance, and ZEObak. Trying to emulate your routine. The last couple weeks I’ve been using the Calcium Carbonate to clean the aquarium. Also using a generic bacteria (Aquavitro Seed @ about 1-2 ml per/day) to get started. Was also thinking of buying a zeovit reactor but the ones available seem to have poor reviews because of too much flow and pebbles falling through the holes in the reactor. Maybe I’ll be fine without using a reactor… Thanks for your videos and helpful info!

I have a vertex reactor and no complaints here..