IMO you should be able to add new fish at the very same time you finished setting up my tank if you add fast growing algae like chaeto. They will consume ammonia and as the time goes bacteria will grow eventually as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
heh. this might be one where some reading would get answers faster than weeks of setup and testing.By the way haven’t coral farms figured this all out.
AD: Great question. The system tested is not that old. I set it up in the spring of 2017, after construction of my new facility was completed. While I actually didn't use any of the rock from my older system, I did use a lot of the water. I transferred a few hundred gallons from the old, to the new when I initially set it up. Some of the rock in my older system had been in saltwater tanks dating back 20+ years, most of the rock over 15 at least. So it's been long established, built from many different sources, and through a great deal of ups and downs over the years.
EM: Really interesting that you used old water but not old rock. I sometimes encounter the view that “most of the microbes are in the rock, what’s in the water doesn’t matter”. Of course, direct counts show tens of thousands of bacteria per ml of aquarium water, and DNA evidence shows these include many of the ones hobbyists care about.
Your experience shows that this water can also be used to establish a healthy microbiome in a new aquarium. At least if you add enough of it!
The transfer of water but not rock touches on @Lasse idea that freshly prepared IO is harsh on fish.heh. this might be one where some reading would get answers faster than weeks of setup and testing.
here's a discussion I remember in aquabiomics article about how BattleCorals set up the system that they really liked the results of.
Transferred water (not rock) en masse from an old coral system to the new system.
It's interesting, but certainly doesn't sound like it's a standard approach.
I believe @Lasse answered this - that there are particulates - in the water that carry nitrifiers. Perhaps I'm incorrectThe transfer of water but not rock touches on @Lasse idea that freshly prepared IO is harsh on fish.
It is clear whether the biofilm is needed on,y process waste? And the old water, just a soothing medium?
Is it clear whether the biofilm is needed only to process waste? And the old water, just a soothing medium?
There is another potentially very important variable we don’t seem to talk about: the aquarist. What the aquarist is doing varies over time. The subject might even be less understood than the aquarium microbiome .The old water can certainly seed new biofilm. The microbiome tests of that BattleCorals system found some of the largest proportions of nitrifiers (Ammonia and nitrite oxidizers both) among any system tested.
There is a widely and strongly held but fuzzy conventional wisdom that something besides waste processing is important. But nobody can definitively say what it is.
"bacteria" "diversity" "maturity" "stability" "biofilm" etc all are used to try to describe the thing that people think is important that happens to a system next after the ammonia->NO2->NO3 step, if it's improvements in waste processing, then nobody knows what is being processed better because the measurables are stable after ~two weeks or less.
The conventional wisdom describes it in terms of addition, all those quoted words above are trying to represent something people think increases with time. But who knows. Maybe it's subtraction - the aging of water and system could be depletion of bad things.
Maybe its not factual - which is my commentary - which I think goes along with the threadThe old water can certainly seed new biofilm. The microbiome tests of that BattleCorals system found some of the largest proportions of nitrifiers (Ammonia and nitrite oxidizers both) among any system tested.
There is a widely and strongly held but fuzzy conventional wisdom that something besides waste processing is important. But nobody can definitively say what it is.
"bacteria" "diversity" "maturity" "stability" "biofilm" etc all are used to try to describe the thing that people think is important that happens to a system next after the ammonia->NO2->NO3 step, if it's improvements in waste processing, then nobody knows what is being processed better because the measurables are stable after ~two weeks or less.
The conventional wisdom describes it in terms of addition, all those quoted words above are trying to represent something people think increases with time. But who knows. Maybe it's subtraction - the aging of water and system could be depletion of bad things.
By the way - what I mean - I am not sure there is any magic in waiting, time, etc - if bacteria are there - they are there. whether in a biofilm, floating on particles in the water, etc.Maybe its not factual - which is my commentary - which I think goes along with the thread
Oh Man I realize I wasn't quoted here but sure wish you could expand on your statementMaybe its not factual - which is my commentary - which I think goes along with the thread
Hahaha thanks manBy the way - what I mean - I am not sure there is any magic in waiting, time, etc - if bacteria are there - they are there. whether in a biofilm, floating on particles in the water, etc.
Yep. Also a strong possibility! One of my favorite recent comments, I'll have to look it up to give the poster credit...Maybe its not factual - which is my commentary - which I think goes along with the thread
I believe that was meYep. Also a strong possibility! One of my favorite recent comments, I'll have to look it up to give the poster credit...
They said, of course corals could survive early in a new tank. It's the hobbyist that needs to mature (not so much the tank) .
The old water can certainly seed new biofilm. The microbiome tests of that BattleCorals system found some of the largest proportions of nitrifiers (Ammonia and nitrite oxidizers both) among any system tested.
There is a widely and strongly held but fuzzy conventional wisdom that something besides waste processing is important. But nobody can definitively say what it is.
"bacteria" "diversity" "maturity" "stability" "biofilm" etc all are used to try to describe the thing that people think is important that happens to a system next after the ammonia->NO2->NO3 step, if it's improvements in waste processing, then nobody knows what is being processed better because the measurables are stable after ~two weeks or less.
The conventional wisdom describes it in terms of addition, all those quoted words above are trying to represent something people think increases with time. But who knows. Maybe it's subtraction - the aging of water and system could be depletion of bad things.
Maybe we can look at it like this.There is another potentially very important variable we don’t seem to talk about: the aquarist. What the aquarist is doing varies over time. The subject might even be less understood than the aquarium microbiome .
Maybe “diversity" "maturity" "stability" apply to the aquarist in terms of “diversity of information sources”, “maturity in thinking skeptically and avoiding fads” and “stability as it applies to breaking the habit of continually adding stuff to the aquarium”.
actually it was this particular comment I was remembering...I believe that was me
but you "liked" that comment too, so close enough!1 thing regarding anemones. Do people really think the "wait 6 months to a year" is so your tank can mature? No! It's so you, the reefer, can learn how to take care of your tank. Yes, anemones can go into a tank day 1.
yep. And if someone offered you 100 gallons of water from a system loaded with awesome corals to start your new system, you should take it.Most conventional wisdomers would say you can't use old tank water to set up a tank! Water column does not carry necessary bacteria. Most would tell you its equivalent to putting bad motor oil back in your car after changing oil. That's a good one I see posted quite enough.
Sure it may be true for some systems I wouldnt dream of reusing the water from.
The question of how to derail the myth that it is bad to use "old" water is basically a question of logical thinking IMO. Just go back to the tank you take your water from - should you do a 100 % WC in that too? If it is "bad" to start a new tank with some % of that water - what it is for the original tank with 100% of that water? The question answer itself - it is a logical somersault. Today - with so many tanks running according to Tritons systematical thinking of no regular WC - we know that old water is not bad for corals.Had to look it up lol
Conventional Wisdom-
A generally accepted theory or belief.
I believe its past time to look as certain beliefs and propose new thoeries as there has been enough evidence posted in this thread alone that shatter some beliefs of conventional wisdom.
Battlecorals test sample proves this.
Most conventional wisdomers would say you can't use old tank water to set up a tank! Water column does not carry necessary bacteria. Most would tell you its equivalent to putting bad motor oil back in your car after changing oil. That's a good one I see posted quite enough.
Sure it may be true for some systems I wouldnt dream of reusing the water from.
But the conventional wisdom behind not reusing water for a new tank application is proven false. And the data proved that.
This might be an argument against water changes.The question of how to derail the myth that it is bad to use "old" water is basically a question of logical thinking IMO. Just go back to the tank you take your water from - should you do a 100 % WC in that too? If it is "bad" to start a new tank with some % of that water - what it is for the original tank with 100% of that water? The question answer itself - it is a logical somersault. Today - with so many tanks running according to Tritons systematical thinking of no regular WC - we know that old water is not bad for corals.
Its right that old water - with help of particles - can contain a load of nitrifiers - but that´s not even the most important factor for me to use old water in a startup if I can.
For me - new mixed water is to "chemical" to work well with organisms which for their defense and/or possibility to survive is dependent on a mucus layer in the interface between the organism and the water. Old water content a lot of organic molecules and particles (among these many organic colloids) This can be a good help in order to withhold homeostasis in the mucus layer. For both participants on each side of an interface there is a general rule about equilibrium. The easiest way of understanding this is osmosis there different salts try to equalize themselves through an interface (membrane). For transport out to the water happens this for all substances that are more or less soluble in water or at least have one part that is hydrophilic.
I think the the general view of new synthetic water and old aquarium water is that the new is the highest quality and after that - the quality fall. That´s not my view at all - for me - the new mixed water is the starting point and then you refine this with time.
Sincerely Lasse
Not so much WC if it needed but against large WC on a regular basis. But it also an argument for small WC if you chose that path. But if you have to do a large WC you need to do it. I need a large WC in my aquaria back in 2018 but I did it that way that I change 50 L a day (for 9 days) instead for 250 L (total volume 300 L and i needed a 80 % WC) the same time. Not as effective but - IMO - more safeThis might be an argument against water changes.
Informative clarification. Thanks.Not so much WC if it needed but against large WC on a regular basis. But it also an argument for small WC if you chose that path. But if you have to do a large WC you need to do it. I need a large WC in my aquaria back in 2018 but I did it that way that I change 50 L a day (for 9 days) instead for 250 L (total volume 300 L and i needed a 80 % WC) the same time. Not as effective but - IMO - more safe
Sincerely Lasse