Dark Tote Cycling Observations

[SoWhatNow]

I am making this post this evening before the microbiota of my systems change forever tomorrow. This will act as a break between 2 biomes, showing and documenting progress now before adding Ocean Direct sand to a nano tomorrow and the tote continuing to cycle in the dark. Interesting things have happened.....

This method is a modified version of BRS Ryans 4 month cycle (video below)

Elements of this post use AI to express the process, this will be abundantly clear (in a quote box), if you have issues with my vernacular remember i'm british, we have vocabulary; i borrowed trumps thesaurus, we got the best words.

On the 07/07/25 i started cycling my main DT aquascape - Reef crystals, heater, pump. Dosed Dr Tims as per directions (incl ammonia) for the first dose, i delineate (see good words) here from Dr tims instructions, when nitrites show, i re dose One and only (only, no ammonia), the reason for this is we now have our AOB (ammonia oxidising bacteria) established and producing nitrites, it is oft proffered that NOB (nitrite oxidising bacteria) are slow to develop, but this isnt true, the environs for their success develop later; by dosing again, fresh NOB hit the ground running in a nitrite rich buffet. This allows a level of equlibrium between AOB and NOB. Once fully cycling, ammonia dosing continues.

I know a lot will be thinking 'yeah and...'

So once it was cycling i added some media to seed for QT and added a fluval 307 to also seed.. So totes cycling, doing it's thing i end up with another fluval evo (so 2 x evos, 2x 300l cubes and some petco type thing), i decided to use one as an LPS growout, reseeded (using my frozen biome ;p) a couple of weeks ago i added a small piece of my big aquascape to the nano, left it cycling (dosing ammonia) on 6th October (3 months later....) i was inspecting the chambers on the nano with a torch, and an unusual hue caught my eye - pink. The rubber feet on the pump had a pink something on it. Could it be coralline? Surely not, but yep it is. So i went to check the tote - the return of the fluval has pink spots on it, try to wipe it off , doesnt shift.... CORALLINE!! Looked in nano return chamber today and its developed on the pump cable..... this tank is about 3-4 weeks old (just checked, 12th september) ... all new, never had ANYTHING in it.....tote is the same, all new never seen a fish, a coral or anything.

The coralline on that fluval fitting in the tote is quite different to the nano coralline in the following picture, note the calcification of the cable (sorry for the muted colours, will get the big camera out tomorrow, it's much much clearer in person.

Remember, this nano is less than a month old. It's not slimy, its crusty :D

1. The microbial succession​

AOB and NOB (ammonia- and nitrite-oxidising bacteria) are autotrophs.
They get carbon from CO₂, not from waste. Their metabolism releases acid, but the high-alkalinity Reef Crystals mix and constant aeration kept pH around 8.3.


Because there were no sugars or light-fed organics, heterotrophic bacteria never bloomed.
The film that formed on the rock was almost entirely nitrifier EPS — thin, porous, and alkaline instead of thick and slimy.
That surface chemistry matters: calcium and carbonate ions can move through it freely.

---

2. The chemistry that built the primer​

Reef Crystals starts rich:

• Alk ≈ 12 dKH fresh
• Ca ≈ 440–460 ppm
• Mg ≈ 1400 ppm
• Strong borate buffering

With heavy aeration pulling CO₂ out, the system’s aragonite saturation state (Ωₐᵣₐg) stayed well above 1.
Inside the bacterial film, local pH ran even higher (8.5+).
That combination makes micro-crystals of CaCO₃ precipitate within the film itself, locking it to the surface — a microscopic carbonate “primer coat.”


It’s chemically the same base layer coralline algae later build on.

---

3. Why the dark phase helped​

No light meant:

• no diatoms or film algae to compete for real estate,
• no DOC from photosynthetic exudates,
• no organic acids lowering local pH.

So the first organisms to occupy the rock were nitrifiers, not phototrophs.
By the time any light arrived, the surfaces were already mineralised and mildly alkaline — not the soft, nutrient-rich biofilm that fuels “the uglies.”

---

4. Coralline colonisation​

Coralline spores are everywhere: in air, salt dust, equipment.
They can attach to clean carbonate even in darkness, using stored energy to maintain basic metabolism.
Once exposed to light, their photosystems wake up, chlorophyll and phycoerythrin are expressed, and the crust turns pink-purple.
That’s why the first visible patches appeared on plastics and pump cables — clean, high-flow surfaces with the same carbonate primer.
The rocks followed once they had light exposure.

---

5. What’s gained​

• Fast biochemical maturity: complete nitrification, stable pH, no nitrite stalls.
• Clean surfaces: mineralised, not mucous; coralline settles before nuisance algae.
• Stable chemistry: RC’s high alk and borate buffer absorb the acid load from nitrification.
• Reproducible: every tote cycle becomes a low-risk way to prep pest-free, coralline-ready rock.

---

6. Condensed chain of events​

NH₃ → NO₂⁻ → NO₃⁻ (nitrification)
CO₂ removed → pH ↑ → [CO₃²⁻] ↑
Ca²⁺ + CO₃²⁻ → CaCO₃(s) within nitrifier EPS
→ mineralised surface
→ coralline attachment → pigment on illumination

I'll post some updates in the future marking progress and divergence and some clearer footage tomorrow.

 

[Red_Beard]

Nice writeup, will be watching for updates!

 

[SoWhatNow]

As promised some slightly better footage.



In case some of you skipped the BRSTV video, the point of the 4 month cure is to completely avoid the uglies, so far the premise is holding as the transplant to the nano is showing. As we can see the nitrifyer EPS is calcifying, crustose coralline is/has formed.

The next measure of success is if this nano does indeed skip the uglies. Ocean Direct live sand will be added when i've posted this, this jump in biodiversity will be very informative; will the current EPS hold off against the heterotrophs? Will the skimmer redress the co2 spike from DOC? I suppose we shall find out.

Will post something later to serve as a visual baseline before the biome lets rip...

 

[SoWhatNow]

This is the cable today, calcium carbonate forming fast. caco3 supersaturation + dark cycle = no uglies.

I've decided to start a thread about the nano, this thread will be furtherances about the tote and dark cycle.

 

[Dread Pirate Dave]

if you have issues with my vernacular remember i'm british, we have vocabulary; i borrowed trumps thesaurus, we got the best words.

A warning not to have a mouth full of coffee while reading would be helpful.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You can’t grow coraline algae in the dark, it is a photosynthetic algae.

You can grow pink or purple bacteria on precipitate….

I am also just a bit confused. If this is still dark, then there will be no nuisance photosynthetic organisms. But, yes dark cycling can certainly help coat surfaces with biofilms and non-photosynthetic organisms that can help to displace some of the ugly organisms that would normally take hold early in a lighted cycle.

As far as when the lights come on — yes coralline and other algae and organisms can be introduced via their, used equipment, dry salt, etc. Even dust settling in a bin of dry rock and water can have enough organic material and bacteria to kick off a cycle.

It can be very interesting to watch what ends up growing in a system that was only started with salt and dry rock.

 

[SoWhatNow]

Its building the scaffold.... can tell you didnt actually read..... anyway, blocked... you add nothing to the r2r experience. laters..

 

[skey44]

I almost skipped the uglies with a completely dark cycle in a 44g brute, no ambient light penetration. But then I got Dinos. I was able to add fish and corals successfully to my tank from the start and the Dinos were due to nitrates bottoming out, so it could have been avoided with dosing. I did not have success just feeding to raise nitrates.
Dark cycling works. I cycled old live rock from as far back as late 90’s early 2000’s Haitian rock with this method that had been in multiple tanks and in the yard for the better part of ten years. Trust me I didn’t have to add ammonia, I actually had to run a phosphate reactor the whole time bc I was leaching phosphate pretty bad for a while. I also did multiple water charges, but I digress. More than a year later I’m still glad I did the dark cycle as it’s been a lot easier to combat each issue that did come in from the fish store.
I agree your crust on the dark tank is most likely precipitate/bacteria and not coralline due to corraline needing light to grow.
A few lessons I learned along the way was is that if you don’t vigorously QT everything you will get nuisance algae and Aiptasia, no matter how much you scrub or how careful you are. I have learned to live with and manage these, just noted. Also I’m not so sure that the money I dumped in the form of “bacteria” was needed. I still have some rock in that brute from over a year ago. I plan to start my frag tank with the remainder over the winter.
Enjoyed the write up of your experiences. Cheers, happy reefing!
You’re at the fun stage where it’s all new and exciting and I love that for you.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It’s building the scaffold.... can tell you didnt actually read..... anyway, blocked... you add nothing to the r2r experience. laters..

I did read both your post and the AI generated explanation. You appear to be stating that you used a flashlight (torch) to find coralline algae in a dark compartment.

I simply stated that Coralline can’t grow in the dark. It is a photosynthetic organism.

When relying on an AI summaries, context can get lost. in this case it appears that the distinction between algae and simple calcium carbonate precipitation has been conflated via introduction of the term "scaffolding". The scaffolding that you (or the AI) speak of is not part of coralline, nor is it unexpected or unique to the method you are using... it’s the foundation upon which much of the organic life in our systems grows.

Nonetheless, coralline spores will not settle and grow in the dark. They require light to photosynthesize and without it, they will stay dormant or die. The "scaffolding" are the normal calcium carbonate structures that dominate every one of our systems.

There is no critique here of your method or system, just a simple clarification regarding coralline algae and what it appears that you observed in the dark system.

I think furthering the knowledge of everyone by promoting conversation certainly does add to the R2R experience and deflection and hostility take away from that experience.

 

[SoWhatNow]

The fluval return is coralline...... the ATO led gave it a few photons lol.

My families heritage is in aquaria, my grandad had a pet shop that was predominantly fish..... started in 1949 when he returned from the war... i have fish transportation boxes older than most folk here. I'm fired up because actually this is pioneering, this is proper reef chemistry, not just adding bottles of whatever.... the tote has only had dr tims....THE reason for the nitrifyer EPS. OF COURSE its bacteria.... the supersaturation of caco3 (reef crystals, high dkh remember...) CAUSES the calification of the EPS, the permissive nature of THIS PARTICULAR biofilm turbocharges this process. This matrix is exactly the same as basal coralline growth, which means when exposed to spores it clings to it, unlike hetertrophic/phototrophic biofilms......

heterotrophs make slime, chemolithoautotrophs make stone.

Don't just accept that we must do this that or the other because thats the way its always been or because the gatekeeping circlejerk state it thus..

 

[BeanAnimal]

There is no gatekeeping here by any stretch of the imagination, but there is also nothing pioneering or novel about what you are doing either. It is just normal calcium carbonate chemistry. I don't mean that in a negative manner, but you appear to be a bit confused by allowing AI to guide your understanding here.

Let's back up though and not move goalposts. You indicated that you found what you thought was coralline algae in the dark. That is not possible, so you pivoted to "scaffolding" and now to "basal corallne growth". So let's discuss that.

Coralline builds its skeleton through a living calcification process, not from random structures created by abiotic or bacterial induced precipitation. This is where you have allowed AI to muddy the waters.

No the "matrix" isn’t “basal coralline growth” or anything resembling it, it is calcium carbonate precipitation. It appears that you are confusing bacterial driven precipitation with biologically controlled calcification. They are not the same. The only "scaffolding" is a calcium carbonate surface to grow on. But that scaffolding is a normal part of our systems.

Precipitation is just that... mineral deposition, be it purely chemical or driven by bacteria creating the right conditions. Randy and others have covered this in detail several times here. That isn't what happens with coralline, bones, shells, or coral skeletons. In those cases, the structures (the calcified skeleton) are purposefully built by the organism, not random mineral deposits from bacterial activity.

If you mean to say that this particular driver of precipitation creates a somehow more hospitable surface than other drivers of precipitation, then sure, that is a valid conversation. But, in the kindest way, given the disposition of your comments thus far and what appears to be a reliance on AI to generate your understanding, I don’t think that it a conversation worth developing. It is beyond your scope of knowledge, as well as mine and the best that we could do would be to post scientific studies showing the differences in surface porosity or properties between different calcium carbonate precipitates or have a battle of AI responses. It is certainly an interesting topic, but well beyond the scope of what this exchange is about or where it started -- coralline growing in the dark.

 

[Dan_P]

@BeanAnimal, I get what you’re saying. The ensuing conversation is spookily similar to the one on “Route 66”.

 

[ReefGeezer]

It's great to see hobbyists documenting their process. Thanks for that. We all learn from these kinds of post. Discussing the assertions made is also part of that learning process.

For discussion purposes, let me make a few comments...

Coralline algae are photosynthetic and would not be expected to grow in low light conditions. Some bacteria do not need light. Generally speaking, all it needs is a source of organic carbon. It can create a biomass that can show up in varying colors. I suspect the slight pink hue seen on the cable in the video is that bacteria. No worries, that would be normal. Its growth is probably a little limited right now due to low organic carbon levels in the new system. The calcium carbonate build-up/precip isn't the "biofilm" that will keep organisms from growing once the lights come on. Those organisms could be coralline but are just as likely to be pest algae and photosynthetic bacteria. Additionally, even if the bacteria grew to cover all of the surfaces, it is not a guarantee that it will outcompete photosynthetic organisms once the lights come on. I would expect to go through some ugly stage after the lights come on.

 

[Mr. Mojo Rising]

I'm doing this right now myself, below is a picture. I cycled the dry rocks then added a damsel, the damsel has been in there 3 months now, I'll make my aquascape change later this month. I also added ruble from several different mature tanks. I find that 3-4 months is perfect to avoid any algae growth, and the rock is mature enough to support the bioload.

My set up is very simple, an airstone a heater and 2 powerheads. My container is not completely dark it gets ambient light, but algae hasn't ever grown for me under ambient light.

Your method is very interesting, thanks for sharing and good luck.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It's great to see hobbyists documenting their process. Thanks for that. We all learn from these kinds of post. Discussing the assertions made is also part of that learning process.

Exactly. The issue (terrible irony) here is that the OP has used AI to synthesize a detailed, but fundamentally flawed scientific explanation of his cycle experiment, and published it in the same form that peer-reviewed research would be published… but is angry about the peer review.

This thread (that post) is the poster child for not using AI to generate content that you don’t fully understand. Some of the cited sources are made up, others not at all relevant.

@SoWhatNow your desire to experiment and document is great. The issue here is the use of AI to generate a scientific explanation for your observations, let alone to define something like “Pathway EPS: Alkalinity as a Determinant of Early Biofilm Programming in Marine Reef Systems”.

What you posted and are trying to explain is a mix of real science, AI hallucination and misapplication — underpinned by hallucinated references that falsely give the impression of credibility. Not only does the AI muddy the waters when it’s correct, it can be insanely misleading when it hallucinates.

The concept of a dark cycle has plenty of credibility and can certainly reduce “ugly” stage algae and bacteria — it has been solid advice for decades. Using AI to add a scientific spin to explain it is the issue here.

My suggestion would be to delete the AI generated science and stick to sharing your observations, photos and parameters as the tank progresses. Instead of trying to invent a scientific model using AI, be open to discussion, not angry about being challenged. “I think it could be coralline” vs “It is coralline” and allow other knowledgeable people to help your understanding.

I have spent a few hours researching the sources cited as well as reading those that could be found outside of paywalls. I have added notes.

References​

Paper	Status
Abdallah, M. et al. (2015) ‘Biofilm formation and persistence in the environment: role of extracellular polymers’, Frontiers in Microbiology, 6, 986. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00986	Paper exists; but wrong title and it is about arsenic resistant genes in non-marine biofilms.
Braissant, O. et al. (2007) ‘Biologically induced mineralization in the calcifying bacterium Bacillus licheniformis’, Journal of Sedimentary Research, 77(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.2110/jsr.2007.026	No matching paper exists; hallucination. Braissant searchable work is no relevant to aquaria or reefs or the science discussed.
Burton, E.A. & Walter, L.M. (1990) ‘The role of pH and alkalinity in calcium carbonate precipitation from seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 54(3), 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(90)90374-Z	No exact match; hallucinated DOI and title. Found Burton & Walter paper (1987) on precipitation but is only partially relevant. It has nothing to do with nitrifier EPS or aquaria.
Dang, H. & Lovell, C.R. (2016) ‘Microbial surface colonization and biofilm development in marine environments’, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 80(1), 91–138. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00037-15	Paper exists, but wrong DOI. Talk of marine biofilms, but not relevant to the conclusions or explanations.
Flemming, H.-C. & Wingender, J. (2010) ‘The biofilm matrix’, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 8(9), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2415	Paper exists. Abstract does appear to be possibly relevant. Article is paywall.
Lee, O.O. et al. (2012) ‘Succession of bacterial communities on polymer surfaces in the marine environment’, Environmental Science & Technology, 46(16), 8829–8837. https://doi.org/10.1021/es301990v	No matching paper exists; complete hallucination. Lee papers on marine biofilms appear to be irrelevant.
Morse, J.W., Arvidson, R.S. & Lüttge, A. (2007) ‘Influence of Mg on CaCO₃ precipitation kinetics and morphology from seawater solutions’, Aquatic Geochemistry, 13(1), 91–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10498-007-9011-1	No exact match; title hallucinated. Morse (2007) paper precipitation exists, partially relevant but no nitrifier or aquaria focus.
Obst, M. & Dittrich, M. (2006) ‘Calcium carbonate precipitation in biofilms of cyanobacteria: a potential biomineralization mechanism’, Geomicrobiology Journal, 23(5), 443–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490450600875686	No exact match; title hallucinated. The Obst (2006) paper on biofilms is freshwater.
Toh, H.S. et al. (2014) ‘Characteristics of extracellular polymeric substances produced by different nitrifying bacteria’, Water Science and Technology, 69(7), 1457–1463. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.024	Paper exists, but wrong title; it’s about sewer hydraulics, not EPS or nitrifiers. Completely irrelevant.
Schmitt, J. & Rapp, H.T. (2022) ‘Microbial processes and carbonate precipitation in coral reef aquaria: lessons from natural systems’, Marine Biotechnology, 24(4), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10126-022-10130-5	No matching paper exists; complete fabrication. Closest Schmitt papers are on sponges.

 

[SoWhatNow]

Yeah course no gatekeeping, no darvo, no badjacketing (route66 what the heck?), no brigading. You even give the game away that you talk sht about users in a closed space. But hey, no gatekeeping.


I was going to give you a much longer explaination but something waaay cool just happened that i need to explore. I know its caco3....

These pics are a IYKYK, this is mega.

I know its caco3 because it fluoresces differently...https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6838102/

The blue areas are mineralised. this is a dual spectrum picture, the warm white on the front is exposing the unmineralised marco rock, the blues are fluorescing the caco3.


This next one.... tells another tale too.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I was going to give you a much longer explaination but something waaay cool just happened that i need to explore. I know it’s caco3....…I know its caco3 because it fluoresces differently...https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6838102/

Thank you for the link, the paper is interesting but it does not appear to be relevant. It is about coral skeletons fluorescing due to proteins, not nitrifier biofilms.

Marco Rock is fully mineralized aragonite that is chemically the same as both abiotic calcium carbonate precipitation and coral skeletons. The porous structure allows bacterial colonization, and the new precipitation or existing rock can both show that fluorescence.

Likewise, given that many biofilms can fluoresce, and this system is weeks or months old, I am not sure how you could rule them out as the source of the blue fluorescence in your photos.

Given the high alkalinity and aeration, precipitation is not unexpected, but not evidence of a unique “Pathway EPS” framework or whatever that AI generated white paper defined.

Maybe you can explain (without AI) exactly what you are trying to illustrate with the photos?

 

[Dan_P]

I am making this post this evening before the microbiota of my systems change forever tomorrow. This will act as a break between 2 biomes, showing and documenting progress now before adding Ocean Direct sand to a nano tomorrow and the tote continuing to cycle in the dark. Interesting things have happened.....

This method is a modified version of BRS Ryans 4 month cycle (video below)

Elements of this post use AI to express the process, this will be abundantly clear (in a quote box), if you have issues with my vernacular remember i'm british, we have vocabulary; i borrowed trumps thesaurus, we got the best words.

On the 07/07/25 i started cycling my main DT aquascape - Reef crystals, heater, pump. Dosed Dr Tims as per directions (incl ammonia) for the first dose, i delineate (see good words) here from Dr tims instructions, when nitrites show, i re dose One and only (only, no ammonia), the reason for this is we now have our AOB (ammonia oxidising bacteria) established and producing nitrites, it is oft proffered that NOB (nitrite oxidising bacteria) are slow to develop, but this isnt true, the environs for their success develop later; by dosing again, fresh NOB hit the ground running in a nitrite rich buffet. This allows a level of equlibrium between AOB and NOB. Once fully cycling, ammonia dosing continues.

I know a lot will be thinking 'yeah and...'

So once it was cycling i added some media to seed for QT and added a fluval 307 to also seed.. So totes cycling, doing it's thing i end up with another fluval evo (so 2 x evos, 2x 300l cubes and some petco type thing), i decided to use one as an LPS growout, reseeded (using my frozen biome ;p) a couple of weeks ago i added a small piece of my big aquascape to the nano, left it cycling (dosing ammonia) on 6th October (3 months later....) i was inspecting the chambers on the nano with a torch, and an unusual hue caught my eye - pink. The rubber feet on the pump had a pink something on it. Could it be coralline? Surely not, but yep it is. So i went to check the tote - the return of the fluval has pink spots on it, try to wipe it off , doesnt shift.... CORALLINE!! Looked in nano return chamber today and its developed on the pump cable..... this tank is about 3-4 weeks old (just checked, 12th september) ... all new, never had ANYTHING in it.....tote is the same, all new never seen a fish, a coral or anything.

The coralline on that fluval fitting in the tote is quite different to the nano coralline in the following picture, note the calcification of the cable (sorry for the muted colours, will get the big camera out tomorrow, it's much much clearer in person.

Remember, this nano is less than a month old. It's not slimy, its crusty :D



I'll post some updates in the future marking progress and divergence and some clearer footage tomorrow.

#1 in the quote box asserts nitrification produces acid but the biofilm is alkaline. How might this paradox be resolved?

 

[BeanAnimal]

unable to comprehend the cited studies. Shameful.

Most of the cited studies don’t exist, they were made up (hallucinated) by the AI that you used to write you white paper. The few that do exist don’t do much to make the case you (the AI) is trying to make.

The study cited with the photos explains coral skeleton fluorescence based on biofilm proteins, so it too is not correlated to the nitrifier precipitation model that your AI generated.

#1 in the quote box asserts nitrification produces acid but the biofilm is alkaline. How might this paradox be resolved?

Interesting catch, solvable or not it appears as another error in the the AI generated “EPS Pathway” model.

I would say that we can find the answer to the paradox in the magic crystals and broken buffers bolus dosing discussion.

 

[Dan_P]

I am making this post this evening before the microbiota of my systems change forever tomorrow. This will act as a break between 2 biomes, showing and documenting progress now before adding Ocean Direct sand to a nano tomorrow and the tote continuing to cycle in the dark. Interesting things have happened.....

This method is a modified version of BRS Ryans 4 month cycle (video below)

Elements of this post use AI to express the process, this will be abundantly clear (in a quote box), if you have issues with my vernacular remember i'm british, we have vocabulary; i borrowed trumps thesaurus, we got the best words.

On the 07/07/25 i started cycling my main DT aquascape - Reef crystals, heater, pump. Dosed Dr Tims as per directions (incl ammonia) for the first dose, i delineate (see good words) here from Dr tims instructions, when nitrites show, i re dose One and only (only, no ammonia), the reason for this is we now have our AOB (ammonia oxidising bacteria) established and producing nitrites, it is oft proffered that NOB (nitrite oxidising bacteria) are slow to develop, but this isnt true, the environs for their success develop later; by dosing again, fresh NOB hit the ground running in a nitrite rich buffet. This allows a level of equlibrium between AOB and NOB. Once fully cycling, ammonia dosing continues.

I know a lot will be thinking 'yeah and...'

So once it was cycling i added some media to seed for QT and added a fluval 307 to also seed.. So totes cycling, doing it's thing i end up with another fluval evo (so 2 x evos, 2x 300l cubes and some petco type thing), i decided to use one as an LPS growout, reseeded (using my frozen biome ;p) a couple of weeks ago i added a small piece of my big aquascape to the nano, left it cycling (dosing ammonia) on 6th October (3 months later....) i was inspecting the chambers on the nano with a torch, and an unusual hue caught my eye - pink. The rubber feet on the pump had a pink something on it. Could it be coralline? Surely not, but yep it is. So i went to check the tote - the return of the fluval has pink spots on it, try to wipe it off , doesnt shift.... CORALLINE!! Looked in nano return chamber today and its developed on the pump cable..... this tank is about 3-4 weeks old (just checked, 12th september) ... all new, never had ANYTHING in it.....tote is the same, all new never seen a fish, a coral or anything.

The coralline on that fluval fitting in the tote is quite different to the nano coralline in the following picture, note the calcification of the cable (sorry for the muted colours, will get the big camera out tomorrow, it's much much clearer in person.

Remember, this nano is less than a month old. It's not slimy, its crusty :D



I'll post some updates in the future marking progress and divergence and some clearer footage tomorrow.

The BRS video seems to be full of BS that you will need to wade through. Listen carefully. The method is not a guarantee for skipping the ugly phase. It might reduce the uglies in many instances. This can be a pure and simple example of the placebo effect. Especially notice that their was no evidence of this method actually working nor a side by side comparisons. The continuous addition of bottled bacteria is a peek behind the magicians curtain. As stated, “you need to dose bacteria regularly because they don’t grow in saltwater”. No growth equals no consumption of nutrients of any kind. Magic trick revealed: sales pitch to buy useless bacteria.