Your tank is too new for _______ organism. Why?

[taricha]

At that stage of a tank, how much benefit is managing trace elements? They're still trying to get past the algea, everything "good" keeps dying, and are spread pretty thin learning the basics...

"managing" traces may not make sense for a new hobbbyist, but think of it this way. Every single cell algae: diatom, dino, cyano, phyto, etc will grow and multiply exponentially until one day it doesn't anymore. All the exponential growers run out of something. This usually happens while NO3 and PO4 are still in the water. They usually run out of some minor or trace elements. So whether you manage traces or not, they are managing the populations of organisms in your tank (usually).
so it may be worth thinking about them even if we aren't actually trying to track them.

 

[Reefering1]

"managing" traces may not make sense for a new hobbbyist, but think of it this way. Every single cell algae: diatom, dino, cyano, phyto, etc will grow and multiply exponentially until one day it doesn't anymore. All the exponential growers run out of something. This usually happens while NO3 and PO4 are still in the water. They usually run out of some minor or trace elements. So whether you manage traces or not, they are managing the populations of organisms in your tank (usually).
so it may be worth thinking about them even if we aren't actually trying to track them.

I agree with this. But does it help Joe clownfish get through his ugly stage? Or could it possibly?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I agree with this. But does it help Joe clownfish get through his ugly stage? Or could it possibly?

I doubt it, but uglies may be, IMO, an entirely different problem than whether a tank is suitable for a coral.

 

[Reefering1]

I doubt it, but uglies may be, IMO, an entirely different problem than whether a tank is suitable for a coral.

Right.
I was responding to your other post...

Just pondering here, but I also wonder how much of the mantra that water changes are all you need in the early stages of a tank plays a part in chemical theories.

For example, it seems highly likely that trace elements such as iron and manganese are severely depleted by ugly stage algae growth or refugium or ats macroalgae and turf algae growth. Water changes won’t keep up with that.

At that stage of a tank, how much benefit is managing trace elements? They're still trying to get past the algea, everything "good" keeps dying, and are spread pretty thin learning the basics...

 

[Cool tangs]

Well the Nitrogen cycle is real, so we can't deny this is an important part of keeping life in our aquarium's in a stable way

How we get there has many methods and I'd argue that "tanks need to age before being suitable for certain organisms (anemones, corals, etc)." Is a myth to an extent. For example if I start a tank with live rock and plop in some fish, the cycle is instant. The rock already holds the beneficial bacterial to start the nitrogen cycle process. Now if I had dry rock and plop in a fish, this will likely result in problems for the fish as the nitrogen cycle will need to develop over time as the bacteria populate the rocks and tank.

Now on the other hand, if your keeping coral, then other then keeping the water chemistry close to the corals natural habitat then you don't need to wait. It's like people that say you need to acclimate your corals, you really don't. Just drop them in and they will do fine.

But overall yes bacterial assists us in keeping our reefs in a box, is there a time limit? Well how long is a piece of string?

My 2 cents, happy reefing

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Right.
I was responding to your other post...

Ok. I would not expect keeping trace elements supplied or controlled will reduce ugly stage time or growth. It might make the growths more extensive. But it might also make a tank more rapidly suitable for corals.

 

[IntrinsicReef]

Ok. I would not expect keeping trace elements supplied or controlled will reduce ugly stage time or growth. It might make the growths more extensive. But it might also make a tank more rapidly suitable for corals.

My theory is that ferric oxide inhibits algae growth due to absorbing traces that algae need to grow, more than the reduction of phosphate. I could see a problematic situation where dosing certain elements early in the succession would lead to unchecked growth of undesirable microorganisms. I don't really use ferric oxide in mature systems, but sometimes utilize it early on to keep cyano, dinos and algae from tipping the balance in their favor. Corals are slow growers. Even if water quality is perfect for them, they can be overtaken by fast growers.

 

[IntrinsicReef]

I have seen water changes fuel outbreaks as well. I'm not against water changes at all. But, during a time where an algae is exponentially growing and taking over, water changes can be fuel on the fire. I assume this is because certain trace elements needed for growth are replenished. I sometimes halt water changes until the algae burns itself out.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I have seen water changes fuel outbreaks as well. I'm not against water changes at all. But, during a time where an algae is exponentially growing and taking over, water changes can be fuel on the fire. I assume this is because certain trace elements needed for growth are replenished. I sometimes halt water changes until the algae burns itself out.

That is certainly a fine plan, and it can apply to dinos too, but it runs the risk that limiting the algae growth is also limiting coral attainment of that same limiting trace element.

Thus, you might trade an algae problem for a suffering coral problem.

 

[Nonya]

There have been studies that show the biome of an aquarium goes through stages of maturation on its way to stability. There are also certain well known TV clowns who dump something in the tank and declare it to be "instantly cycled". Too many "experts" have declared that cycling is overrated, and that once ammonia and nitrites are gone that the gates are open. The hobby is too expensive to waste so much money killing livestock due to personal vanity and/or ignorance. Bragging "only 10% loss" when initially loading up a tank is vanity, not expertise. The most important things in the hobby are knowledge, experience, common sense, and most of all, patience. In many cases, they appear to be lacking.

 

[Quietman]

I've developed a sense that there's stability level that's needed before adding organisms that are more sensitive to stressors such as changing water parameters, various types of ugly phase algae, aggression, mild predation (crabs and fish nipping). That stability can be managed many ways and isn't limited to a long established tank but will require regular maintenance actions (water changes, feeding, addressing aggressive behaviors, etc). Since most new hobbyists have issues with not only what needs to be done, but the importance of doing it, it's just easier? simpler? to state, "wait a year before adding ___". And that probably leads to more success or probably better to say results in less failure.

The closest I've come to comparable experience is when I've put anemones into bare tanks with no rock or sand (and I don't think I even had time to cycle) and had no issues for weeks. Fully open and feeding anemones. But that was managed by including regular high % water changes and no other organisms.

Tried the same thing the year before with new sand and new rock (after cycling of course) and a fire fish and failed even with same water changes. No idea really why the difference, but I believe (cringing on vagueness) that the stress of adjusting to being moved to new environment (not the new environment itself) plus the stress of other things in the tank maturing, caused the loss of the anemones.

I just realized typing this that all this falls under one of the golden rules of reefing I've heard. "Don't change more than one thing at a time".

 

[IntrinsicReef]

That is certainly a fine plan, and it can apply to dinos too, but it runs the risk that limiting the algae growth is also limiting coral attainment of that same limiting trace element.

Thus, you might trade an algae problem for a suffering coral problem.

Absolutely. It's definitely a trade off. I have observed this with ferric oxide. The tank will stay cleaner, but the corals tend to have a pale coloration and grow more slowly. But, sometimes this is preferable to the physical smothering and water chemistry manipulation of fast growing algae( Dinos, cyano,etc.)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There have been studies that show the biome of an aquarium goes through stages of maturation on its way to stability. There are also certain well known TV clowns who dump something in the tank and declare it to be "instantly cycled". Too many "experts" have declared that cycling is overrated, and that once ammonia and nitrites are gone that the gates are open. The hobby is too expensive to waste so much money killing livestock due to personal vanity and/or ignorance. Bragging "only 10% loss" when initially loading up a tank is vanity, not expertise. The most important things in the hobby are knowledge, experience, common sense, and most of all, patience. In many cases, they appear to be lacking.

But are you sure the stages of bacterial succession are responsible for poor likelihood of coral or anemone health at early stages?

That would imply, for example, that a frag tank should be quite risky.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Absolutely. It's definitely a trade off. I have observed this with ferric oxide. The tank will stay cleaner, but the corals tend to have a pale coloration and grow more slowly. But, sometimes this is preferable to the physical smothering and water chemistry manipulation of fast growing algae( Dinos, cyano,etc.)

Thanks,

 

[Nonya]

But are you sure the stages of bacterial succession are responsible for poor likelihood of coral or anemone health at early stages?

That would imply, for example, that a frag tank should be quite risky.

Everything is risky. By frag tanks, are you implying bare bottom tanks with frag racks?

There are methods that increase long-term success, most of which involve planning and patience.

 

[JonEB]

We very often hear folks claim that tanks need to age before being suitable for certain organisms (anemones, corals, etc).

But there's little evidence what (if anything) is changing that is the basis of these assertions, or how general the claims may be for all tanks.

To be clear, I'm not saying this isn't true, but I'm also not sure it is (maybe it is actually aquarist knowledge on how to stably run that system, for example), and if so, what is causing it or if it is always true (folks start tanks in many different ways).

What do you think is the basis of this claim?

A bacteria changing effect? (we know they change, but is there evidence connecting the dots...)
A chemical changing effect? (what chemicals?)
An aquarist knowledge effect?
Something else?
Nothing at all in some cases?

Well after my brief 3 years in the hobby my take is that the biom stabilizes after maturing the system. the interaction between human interface, microscopic organisms, livestock, choral, lighting, ph levels, even down to the levels of magnesium in the tank, having macro algea, crustaceans, etc. is all a part of what makes an isolated reef successful or not. If you have experience in the arena, than you have more knowhow to speed up the process of stabilization and know what can help create that ideal biom without crashing the reef.
plus having already established reef to transfer makes life 1000% easier imo.

 

[JonEB]

I think it's experience and knowledge. At some point you figure out what it takes to get a reef going and how to maintain stability. Add to this by now you know how to recognize problems right at the start and cut them off at the pass. I've done 4 systems now and my last one i added everything from zoa's and Euphyllia garden to Acro with in 2 weeks of putting the tank up. The system before was all new sand, bleached Reef rock and a few pounds of live sand on top of new in the display and live rock in the sump. Same thing. I had it full of SPS and LPS within a week never skipped a beat. My tank journey on R2R tells the hole story. It's kinda embarrassing to go back and see the first system set up, but it's part of my journey as a reefer. Any way just what I think could be completely of base.

Would you say that the biggest key to success in a brand new system (without any pre established reef) is patience and slow introduction?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Everything is risky. By frag tanks, are you implying bare bottom tanks with frag racks?

There are methods that increase long-term success, most of which involve planning and patience.

Just noting that bacterial succession may not be required to grow corals, as shown by putting corals to a new tank that has basically little else.

 

[Lasse]

But then I think, if everything was perfect before the water change, why do the corals open up more afterward?

Are you sure that corals that "open up" do that because they feel well? Or could it sometimes be caused of something that irritate them?

Another hobbyist was recently talking about how well a new small system of theirs made it through the first year, being fed water from their old established system.

These are my experiences too. My thoughts on this may be a bit "up in the air" or vague (I'm having trouble finding the right English translation but if you've ever talked to a "hippie" in the 60s you'll understand what I mean ) New artificial seawater is just a chemical mixture without all of these organic (and pre-organic) compounds that use to be defined as colloids and/or stable DOC´s. There is no life in it (here talks the hippie). My thought is that these compounds is important for the stability of the first line of defence that most aquatic organism have - the mucous layer. IMO - this "chemical" water can be partly be responsible for many disease outbreak in a newly started aquarium - like many external parasite attacks and bacteria attack that start from the outside and goes inwards. Use of "old" water is a good habit, use of some used rocks (or fresh rocks from the sea), use of used sand (cleaned from most organic matter). This is my preferred way of handling a start but sometimes you need to start from the total beginning. In these cases - a Tetra addition - Tetra Bactozyme has give as good result as the other methods in the start. No - I have no science data to prove this but its my experiences from many, many starts of aquariums - fresh/salt water. I can´t say if it is the old guy placebo that shows its ugly face or if it is a real effect.

I doubt it, but uglies may be, IMO, an entirely different problem than whether a tank is suitable for a coral.

Yea - I think so. The uglies is - IMO - a function of the empty - not colonized - spaces and fastest reproducing organism available at a given moment and a given composition of various solutes.

My theory is that ferric oxide inhibits algae growth due to absorbing traces that algae need to grow, more than the reduction of phosphate. I could see a problematic situation where dosing certain elements early in the succession would lead to unchecked growth of undesirable microorganisms. I don't really use ferric oxide in mature systems, but sometimes utilize it early on to keep cyano, dinos and algae from tipping the balance in their favor. Corals are slow growers. Even if water quality is perfect for them, they can be overtaken by fast growers.

Its an interesting thought and you are probably right - see here - but it will - as mentioned by Randy - also affect the growth of corals and photosynthesizing organism that you want to have. (those you can control with CUC). Maybe someone can test a method with dosing PO4, dosing small amounts of labile DOC, external feeding of corals and a heavy filtration with GFO when there is a heavy outbreak of "uglies"?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

@taricha

"High" Traces

Rubidium dosage last year

Traces that not be daily dosed but sometimes boost dosed after analyze

I have only report ICP-MS here.

Sincerely Lasse