Reefers with 10+ yrs - what's the one thing that was thought to be true 10 yrs ago but is now in current times DEBUNKED?

[nickkohrn]

The rock isn't just used as filtation though - it is also used to mimic the natural habitat of, and hiding places for, the fish in the aquarium.

Sure, that’s true, but that’s not what I was seeing and hearing from hobbyists in 2005. When I had a clownfish and a cardinal in a 20g that year, 10 pounds of strategically-placed rock would have been sufficient. However, the rule of 1-2lbs of rock spurred me to get 25lbs. of rock, which made the tank one dead spot and looked awful because there wasn’t much swimming space left for fish that typically swim in the water column.

 

[warpdrvr]

I still believed that about clowns. Not true? I can add to my percula pair?

Well I still think that about clowns. I have a pair and added a third one a few weeks ago. He’s being bullied so much by one of the pair that I’m starting a new tank just for him. However I’m still a newb so what to I know....

 

[Belgian Anthias]

+1 on nitrates. Can’t believe they used to sell denitraters at one point of time...and I had one too

A skimmer removes COD constantly but leaves most nitrogen behind. An unbalance in essential nutrient availability is created. How the nitrogen balance can be restored, important for good coral husbandry, without effectively remove nitrogen only?
What product or method effectively removes nitrogen only?

There is nothing wrong with active nitrogen management by using bio-filters to manage the nitrogen content. Denitrification is the only way to close the nitrogen cycle within a closed system. The use of a denitrifying bio-filter is one of the possible options. Since the 90', in marine aquaria, bio-filters are not only used for supporting the carrying capacity, denitrifying biofilters are used to support a high bio-load and for restoring the nitrogen balance in reef systems using a skimmer and or DOC absorbers, by managing the denitrification rate. Such denitrifying bio-filters are NOT kept anoxic and work fine. The denitrification capacity and denitrification rate can easily be managed. There is no need for an anoxic kept reactor to create a denitrifying bio-filter. There is no need for a reactor as everything may and will take place at normal aquarium conditions.

Active nitrogen management using bio-filters increases the max bioload of the system as desired and makes the carrying capacity easily manageable. The carrying capacity can grow with the growing bio-load.

For a few decades so-called " denitrificators" have build up a bad name because the advice was followed to keep the reactor anoxic wich can cause problems if the flow rate is not managed properly, certainly when too small reactors are used. Because of the high risk for human error such so-called " denitrators" can not be advised to be used in closed life support systems such as aquaria. If properly managed such " denitrators" work fine although the nitrogen removal rate is difficult to manage or not at all. It is a good example of how things may live their own lives on the internet.

Most reef aquaria are based on passive nutrient management when started up. The owner has little or no possiblities to adjust things after startup. It is still made believed so-called " live rock" makes the difference and is essential for supporting passive carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of passively managed reefaquaria is very low and is able to support a low max bio-load. The bio-load of an aquarium grows! Then the active management starts by adding all kinds of expensive commercial products, products promising to solve problems that can easily be avoided using a simple active bio-filter by which the nitrogen content can easily be managed.

Why the bio-filter was banned a few decades ago and still is?

 

[Belgian Anthias]

The rock isn't just used as filtation though - it is also used to mimic the natural habitat of, and hiding places for, the fish in the aquarium.

" life rock" Another example of an item living its own life on the internet for decades.
In the beginning of reefkeeping corals where collected together with there base, the rock on which they where growing, later called " live rock". They had very good results. What they did not know at that time is they introduced this way most of the coral holobiont. Introducing some rock which has been in the ocean somewhere on the other end of the world does not introduce a corals holobiont. There is no proof so called " live rock " would be of any benefit for the reef in a closed system, maybe one is only introducing competitors for the corals?! Who will tell?

Live Rock in the Marine Aquarium

The selection and use of live rock and live sand

chucksaddiction.thefishestate.net

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-05/rs/feature/index.php

ref: http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku.php?id=nl:makazi:het_water:filtratie:levend_steen

 

[tnw50cal]

5 decades ago
Got to have a undergravel filter, reverse flow even better.
A male pink skunk Anemonefish has a thin orange line around the dorsal fin
A male Ocellaris clown fish the center stripe projects further forward in the center, a female's doesn't.
Only very large(think city owned) tanks with very special equipment can keep coral alive for long.

 

[Paul B]

5 decades ago
Got to have a undergravel filter, reverse flow even better.

No difference today, I still use one.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

5 decades ago
Got to have a undergravel filter, reverse flow even better.

Still a great solution.
It was the intention to avoid anoxic zones in the filter bed and encourage complete aerobic remineralization. It did what was intended it should do. It still does. The undergravel filter has played a very important role in the success of the home aquarium. An undergravel filter will increase the carrying capacity of a tank of the same size considerably and is a lot more effective for this purpose compared to the same size tank filled with so-called "live rock". It still does what was promised decades ago. Does "live rock " do what is promised and what is intended it should do?

It is a fact the carrying capacity of passively managed reef systems is a lot lower as an aquarium managed by a bio-filter. An under gravel filter may still be a great solution for limiting the risks and for preventing ammonia poisoning in mixed reefs.

For managing closed mixed reef systems that are intended to carry a high bioload I prefer to use an "old fashion" bio-filter on which I can trust and build on for active management of the nitrogen content in the system. This way I am able to decide how much nitrogen will be removed daily and to keep the nitrogen content in balance with the other essential nutrients, limiting the risk for my corals to become white.

 

[Rcpilot]

I started my 1st saltwater tank in 1986.

1st reef in 1992.

Everything has changed.

 

[tnw50cal]

No difference today, I still use one.

I said GOT to have one, now a days can go either way.

 

[bryanfuel]

I just want to say, I'm so glad we are past the days of under-gravel filters and old school wet dry filters filled with bioballs.

 

[Tamberav]

I just want to say, I'm so glad we are past the days of under-gravel filters and old school wet dry filters filled with bioballs.

I really wanted a reverse under gravel filter to try but could not find them anymore in the size I needed

 

[Belgian Anthias]

I really wanted a reverse under gravel filter to try but could not find them anymore in the size I needed

A sheet of pvc , PE or PMMA, drill small holes or and grind small sleeves in it and put a filter cloth on it. A small pvc pipe and airstone or small pump for circulation.

 

[Tamberav]

A sheet of pvc , PE or PMMA, drill small holes or and grind small sleeves in it and put a filter cloth on it. A small pvc pipe and airstone or small pump for circulation.

Cavemen had better tools than me

 

[TrojanScott]

I’ve been reefing for about 28 years. Lots of this stuff is great reading and takes me back. Won’t repeat what others have said but one that I haven’t seen, you’ve got to keep your temperature at 75. (Even though the average reef runs at 82 I think).
I spent a ton on electricity and a chiller. Ditched that after some research and ran a successful reef with halides at 81-83.
Now with LEDs, it’s 77-78
Only bummer I can remember about a higher temp reef, other than evaporation, was trying to keep red foot snails, they didn’t fair well in higher temps. Never see those around anymore, they were neat looking.

 

[ca1ore]

SPS cannot grow in ”dirty” water. N03 and p04 MUST be zero

That’s about the only thing I’ve read in this entire thread that I think was broadly believed a decade ago that has been mostly refuted. All things equal, lower nutrients are better than higher .... but they are not the coral death sentence once thought. Otherwise it’s all just stuff that some may have believed that others did not, or the inevitable progression of technology to achieve a desired end result. LED are a good example.

 

[vetteguy53081]

The use of and success of LED Lighting. Everything was either Halide or Florescent and the Hybrid 10 years ago was an MH/t5 combo. if you had one. . . . OH Boy !!!

 

[DSC reef]

You have to feed tridacna that are small in order for them to survive

 

[Bpb]

100% debunked:

-when removing a sandbed, one must remove in portions to give time for live rock surfaces to take on replacement bacteria.

False.
If a given amount of live rock alone is enough surface area to handle X bioload alone, without sand, then removing sand or six extra canister filters we may have opted to run immediately doesn’t automatically make that same rock surface area lacking. If it’s not enough surface area, partial sand removal doesn’t make it gain surface area and stacking bacteria on top of bacteria doesn’t increase surface area it lowers it. rocks don't take on replacement bac from missing sand, their spaces were already full before the sand removal.

Surfaces self regulate bacterial density through actions like water shear and space competition

Removing surface area that is gross in excess of oxidation needs doesn’t leave the remaining surface area weaker.

The impact of the change is freedom to do things with your sandbed so it doesn’t kill your aquarium, without hesitation. we’re free to act now.

Work example

Went bare bottom!

Was tired of detritus buildup and ugly algae and gunk built up on my rocks so I took out all my rocks and scrub them all except the one my Nem was attached to. All sand removed and inhabitants was added back after the tank was thoroughly cleaned. Hope nothing goes wrong. All fish and corals...

www.reef2reef.com

That has absolutely not been my experience in practice. Real world and paper theory often don’t agree. The two times I’ve attempted to remove a sandbed too quickly have resulted in mass scale acropora RTN. Anemones, fish, and LPS corals were largely unaffected, yes, but I would never say it’s fully save to just yank the sand in any tank in any circumstance

 

[brandon429]

The only way I’ve come to be able to control the outcome of a sand ripping is to have a say in the prep and execution. I can’t factor someone else’s varied approach as safe or not, but we’re out to thirty pages no sps loss when we get full say start to finish. All I can offer is massive pattern set to scrutinize

Official Sand Rinse and Tank Transfer thread

If you are reading this thread to cure a tank invasion from a link I sent you, we do not need to identify your type of invasion here we do not need you to test anything at anytime regarding nitrate, phosphate etc Above all, we do not need to see a microscope slide picture of your invasion at...

www.reef2reef.com

If i had to pin one causative in your case it would be the lighting ramp up trick we use. I’ve never seen anyone outside the sand rinse thread associate a full ripping event with a week long led light reduction, we arrived at that by watching bleach stress patterns over time. I back edited the warning onto page one, catch em early now. I agree those delicate sps can bleach but it’s not by ammonia burning or lack of surface area, we think there’s some stress associated with this much waste removal this fast, so we drop lights into acclimate mode after removal and it stopped the issue.

*our system examples are typically normal mixed reefs, not so much the 20k all top shelf/Jason Fox wall to wall investment a system of that precision agreed would warrant hecka brainstorming before the event. If you wanted to remove it in sections for safety I could not complain about that

 

[Dine]

When I had my first tank everyone on the forums told me to get my nitrates and phosphates to zero. It shocked me when I started this tank that now everyone says that I need some nitrate and phosphate. Also, it seemed like bristleworms were just starting to be recognized as good guys. Now, most people think they are. And I never heard back then that asterina starfish were bad, just unsightly in huge numbers.

All of this.