I see what you are saying and maybe it would be best for OP to help us identify what the "uglies" are. Is it diatoms? Dinos? green algaes? if we can name the uglies better than the uglies we may be able to get to a better idea of what is going on.
Yeah I think that is the part that is missing, the term Uglies (New tank uglies to be specific) is not very informative. I don't consider green algae to be part of the uglies as it is a normal byproduct of high nutrients in any tank regardless of it's age. I'm actually excited to see green algae growing as it typically means your biome is stabilizing. I do think many people consider GHA to be part of the uglies but in reality it is a result of you not managing your nutrients after the tank has cycled and can occur at any point of keeping your reef if you don't maintain nutrients at a manageable level.
Thank you. Bubble algae is the bane of my existence. But everything has a role in my view. I’m trying to work with it more instead of against it. Thanks for sharing more and I hope you share more still.I’ve probably didn’t explained myself properly. I’m not experiencing nothing out of the ordinary with nuisance just yet.
My thoughts is that i shouldn’t be seeing film algae on the glass to be a sure thing, if film algae on glass can grow then other nuisances could also take place. There was a small impact on bubble algae that was in one of the rocks introduced.
I was hoping to be able to outcompete the diatoms if that makes sense.
This is how everything looking today, after cleaning the brown film on glass.
Rocks seem to be maturing
Bubble algae 27 November
Bubble algae today
I thought the "experiment" was over?
You’re now suggesting that film algae on glass is some kind of definitive indicator for whether “nuisances” will take place, but you haven’t established any causal or measurable relationship to support this conclusion. As it is, film algae growth is common in any system with nutrients, regardless of whether it’s "carbon-limited" or “balanced” (per your original premise). So I am a bit bewildered by your assertion.
Some say a picture says a thousand words. You claimed the crinoid would be dead? I’m assuming you mean the coral? Which doesn’t look like a crinoid to me. But if you are talking about that pink coral growing on the rocks it looks like it’s still alive. Am I understanding this correctly?
The crinoid did die some pages back. But was regrowing?
Maybe I missed it? I only seen the pinkish looking coral growing on the rocks. Will look again.
www.reef2reef.com
Still don’t understand what’s your problem with the timeline? The crinoid was introduced with the dark period. Not sure what you trying to get at?
Sixty’s equation - feather sea star observations
You do realise that eventually we will become good friends :p Hi - I don't dislike you, nor is any of this personal. I think you are extremely interested in these topics and enthusiastic about learning and participating in the science of them. That is wonderful. The rub (as mentioned several...
Unquestionably the same tank. Reported alive as of Nov 3rd or 4th.
From the first post in THIS thread on NOVEMBER 21st
The system has been just over 30 days dark with just mature media from a cycled tank in the back sump baffle, no mechanical filtration, just protein skimmer....
...The rock has been added yesterday to the system
Also note on November 3rd he indicted
I will leave the math and logic to you, but unless that crinoid and the 30 day dark tank are in a multiverse... both can't be, given the OPs direct claims and the timestamps on the threads and photos, as well as those in a few other threads.
I just laid out what it has to do with this thread. Yes I "know". The photos in the various threads show the same tank on the same stand from the same camera position. Let's not beg questions that have obvious answers.
I tried to stay out of this thread as Gawd knows I'm hardly qualified, but once you mentioned the above I had been thinking about the same thing the last 10 pages... Hope the OP doesn't mind random suggestions from a less qualified peer in no particular order:
I still don't get what the problem is? Can you please give me these obvious answers?
The time frame and timelines dont add up. The tank has been running longer and under different circumstances than are being discussed by op here in this thread. That in itself isnt the issue so much but it invalidates most of this "experiment" not to mention it throws a shadow of doubt on what he is saying because its not 100% truth might not be intentional, they might just be forgetful. They also do not even register when told or questioned. This is the same tank in multiple threads. Eggs + 1 basket = wrong
What part of the timeline is wrong? can you explain how this invalidates his experiments here? I don’t get that part. Does having one tank in multiple threads not allowed?
I’ve answered that question a few times already
In addition 10% blue light is no more than moonlight or ambient light for a few hours a day, how would the 10% light affect the rock that not been in the display? You had enough time going through all my threads, did you see any rock in any of them.
I’ll also ask you the same question as I’ve asked the other member, what do you understand with the term just over 30 days?
There is folks doing 6 months dark and still experiencing an ugly stage, the dark stage is usually to ensure you have an effective nitrogen cycle. To your point what’s the revelation here?
This thread is only getting attention due to many not being able to finish the Redfield thread, they still have issue with some of the arguments that was raised in there, don’t think for a minute that there is anyone here trying to help. It’s an observational thread and look how much interaction it has been over here. Why do you think the moderators had to intervene several times?
