Your tank is too new for _______ organism. Why?

[taricha]

I´m sorry - here is the right version

Note: Low and High is recommended from OCEAMO - I not always follow it

Sincerely Lasse

awesome Lasse.

Here's my version of a similar set of data FM ICP-OES and Oceamo ICP-MS. The 6 week long phases are
phase 0 - nothing
phase 1 - feed a bunch of nori and phyto (25% or protein input)
phase 2 - do a bunch of water changes (15% per week, instead of the 1-2% default for me)
Phase 3 - Dose Red Sea Trace parts A and C (in the plot are the 1-10ppb elements that are NOT in the trace supplement)

you can see ICP-OES sometimes hits and sometimes misses in the low single digit ppb range. ICP-MS shows remarkable stability across these elements despite the intentional changes to inputs on my part.

 

[taricha]

Another question I’ve been thinking about, based on different articles, is whether the nitrogen cycle is partially a myth in this context. From what I’ve learned, corals prefer nitrogen in the form of ammonium. So, I assume that in a tank densely stocked with corals, no matter how old it is, a traditional nitrogen cycle wouldn’t develop because the corals absorb ammonium directly.

Yeah, pretty much, but it's not that nitrifiers don't establish. It's more that hungry photosynthetic organisms in a mature tank likely dominate them. And so they end up with a really small role in grabbing ammonia. Look at a tank like Lasse and think about how much of that system is living photosynthetic surface, all of which would consume ammonia if given the chance. Classic nitrification will be present but a pretty small role in that system.
Randy's new article contains a lot of re-evaluation of ammonia in reef tanks based on this sort of perspective.
https://www.reef2reef.com/ams/ammonia-is-our-friend.1062/

 

[BZOFIQ]

Would always here that hammer and torches don’t do well in new tanks do to alkalinity swings. True, they don’t do well with swings. But maybe that is in part to inexperience. Here is a hammer that did well as soon as the cycle was over in this stark observation tank. This is 2 months after addition but it looks the same.

Beautiful wrasse!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Yeah, pretty much, but it's not that nitrifiers don't establish. It's more that hungry photosynthetic organisms in a mature tank likely dominate them.

Taking that a step further, the entire modern premise of cycling a tank is based on having an excess of ammonia producers over consumers.

There's no reason one cannot start a tank with an excess of consumers (say, macroalgae) over producers (fish). That's the scenario in many frag tanks and in many macro dominant reef tanks.

 

[Troylee]

I’ve always found this false! People always throw it out there but it’s false! I’ll prove just that this weekend! I’m setting up a new tank this weekend and I’ll have sps in it the same day and I’ll document it!

 

[Luminous74]

Taking that a step further, the entire modern premise of cycling a tank is based on having an excess of ammonia producers over consumers.

There's no reason one cannot start a tank with an excess of consumers (say, macroalgae) over producers (fish). That's the scenario in many frag tanks and in many macro dominant reef tanks.

Doesn’t the issue arise that an excess of nitrogen consumers inevitably leads to a limitation? Over the years, I’ve learned that nitrogen limitations are easier to recognize and fix than PO₄ limitations or larger fluctuations in it.
Also, I’m wondering, based on various discussions I’ve seen online, if it might be counterproductive to provide too much surface area in the tank for the settlement of nitrifying bacteria, since they would compete with the nitrogen consumption (specifically ammonium) by the corals. This relates to new tanks, which typically have low coral mass compared to the surface area available for nitrifying bacteria. This ratio changes as the tank ages and corals grow.

The question also remains whether a system can function and run stable without live rock or artificial rocks and without a long tank maturation, relying solely on a sufficient amount of coral mass. I think the example of frag tanks that are run this way would confirm this, right?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Doesn’t the issue arise that an excess of nitrogen consumers inevitably leads to a limitation? Over the years, I’ve learned that nitrogen limitations are easier to recognize and fix than PO₄ limitations or larger fluctuations in it.
Also, I’m wondering, based on various discussions I’ve seen online, if it might be counterproductive to provide too much surface area in the tank for the settlement of nitrifying bacteria, since they would compete with the nitrogen consumption (specifically ammonium) by the corals. This relates to new tanks, which typically have low coral mass compared to the surface area available for nitrifying bacteria. This ratio changes as the tank ages and corals grow.

The question also remains whether a system can function and run stable without live rock or artificial rocks and without a long tank maturation, relying solely on a sufficient amount of coral mass. I think the example of frag tanks that are run this way would confirm this, right?

I'm specifically talking here about starting a tank (say, adding macroalgae rather than, say, bottled bacteria and a fish as the first things). The macroalgae will be limited at first. That doesn't particularly concern me for a start up phase.

After start up, then one begins to monitor nitrate like any tank, and if it is too low, then feeding more or dosing ammonium or nitrate or some other N source would be in order.

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

I have started multiple tanks with coral first. I dosed bacteria and off it went. I only get problems when I have failed to maintain my maintenance, tried shortcuts or introduced diseases or pest. This happen to me most recent.

My current tank started out with just an elegance and a frogspawn. Both are doing great now. However, I started adding more corals then rock and then sand. I have never had much luck with sand.

When it was bare bottom initially, my only main issue was the shrimp and crabs irritating my coral. I went and added sand for more of the look and because I was not feeling well and going to lug 2 jugs a week was not fun. And tried to alter my success from my prior setup before marriage and move. More volume of sand and rock means less water.

I am now back to bare bottom and unfortunately just 3 corals.

I have stated all this that whether a tank is new or established does not matter for coral. It is are you supplying what it needs? Are you maintaining your schedule and maintenance? While I am not against short cuts, there is a difference in cutting corners because you can provide and still meet needs vs cutting corners because you are just to tired or lazy.

One issue with new tanks is with newer people, as some have mentioned, they don't have the understanding of the rhythm and consistency needed not bacteria establishment. Corals provide most of their own bacteria and have low bioload. They absorb and can use some ammonia while still allowing for bacteria to establish elsewhere. They still need a food source.

Fish and such add the majority to the bioload. Bacteria need time to establish. How ever with enough bacteria introduced such as from coral, bottles, live rock and sand, you may have enough bacteria to add fish and such. The water itself carries very little bacteria and biome in our tanks. In fact, we kill this with UV sterilizers, filters and skimmers as well as other means to clean and sterilize the water column.

 

[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

I have edit my original post (#100) - include numbers

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Luminous74]

I have started multiple tanks with coral first. I dosed bacteria and off it went. I only get problems when I have failed to maintain my maintenance, tried shortcuts or introduced diseases or pest. This happen to me most recent.

Fish and such add the majority to the bioload. Bacteria need time to establish. How ever with enough bacteria introduced such as from coral, bottles, live rock and sand, you may have enough bacteria to add fish and such. The water itself carries very little bacteria and biome in our tanks. In fact, we kill this with UV sterilizers, filters and skimmers as well as other means to clean and sterilize the water column.

That makes me wonder: Do corals and fish need different bacteria than the ones they bring with them when they’re healthy?

 

[Ben's Pico Reefing]

That makes me wonder: Do corals and fish need different bacteria than the ones they bring with them when they’re healthy?

Well there is bacteria in fish. But I don't think it actually contributes the same way for breaking down ammonia and such.

 

[tripdad]

Hey there @Randy Holmes-Farley , Has anyone done a study to determine what is actually removed by a skimmer? I mean not just organics but similar to Lasse's tables what other items they remove? Do they remove some of the "good bacteria", ammonia, complex or simple compounds and so on. My point being is your tank too new to start running a skimmer? Would it be better to delay implementation of one?

 

[Lasse]

My point being is your tank too new to start running a skimmer? Would it be better to delay implementation of one?

IMO - the skimmer is most important in order to withhold oxygen levels and to balance the CO2 content of the water. In a newly started aquarium it may not be as important with a skimmer.

According to what it removes - my experiences it that it will not remove the compounds in my 2 first charts (Co, Cu, Mo, Ni, Se, Cs, Ba and Li) During this time 2022-2025 I run a little bit oversized skimmer 24/7 and no huge WC with one exception - around 90 L in 10 L patches between 2023-01-18 and 2023-02-18.

But my tests should only be seen as indications how it really is. My graphs only shows my ICP-MS tests and I have done some ICP-OES tests too.

In this graph - from my ICP-MS tests - it looks like Ba rise in a linear way after the 80 L WC in 2023

But if we also take with the ICP- OES result - it looks different

Sincerely Lasse

 

[GARRIGA]

Curious how many starting a frag tank wait before adding plugs and getting the ball rolling? Some may not incorporate live rock in their system including sump area or aged water from another system. Some may have bare bottom tanks with nothing fancier than skimmer and various wave makers and new salt mixed right out of a bucket.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hey there @Randy Holmes-Farley , Has anyone done a study to determine what is actually removed by a skimmer? I mean not just organics but similar to Lasse's tables what other items they remove? Do they remove some of the "good bacteria", ammonia, complex or simple compounds and so on. My point being is your tank too new to start running a skimmer? Would it be better to delay implementation of one?

Yes, folks have done studies. Ron Skimek (chemistry), Ken Feldman (bacteria and organics), etc., but they do not lead to clear take home messages in this context, IMO.

Whether and when to use a skimmer is a more complicated question, and may depend on the goals and organisms. I've not seen any studies of how tanks proceed with and without skimming.

It's an interesting idea to delay skimming startup or run time. TBS says they do not skim in their live rock holding tanks:

Why are reef tank rocks devoid of life?

Do you know if bacteria (nitrifying) have a preference on what media they prefer? I did a Google fest a couple of years ago on this, plastic is preferred by nitrifiers it appears.

www.reef2reef.com

Some of the most beautiful TBS tanks are very simple breeders with no skimmer, no dosing, no uv, no socks...just water changes.

Btw, we hold ocean farmed rock in natural sea water; no skimming, no dosing, no carbon, no socks, etc. Heavy particulates in the water column at the farm (and in our holding system) maintain the needs of live rock lifeforms long term.

 

[Subsea]

Yes, folks have done studies. Ron Skimek (chemistry), Ken Feldman (bacteria and organics), etc., but they do not lead to clear take home messages in this context, IMO.

Whether and when to use a skimmer is a more complicated question, and may depend on the goals and organisms. I've not seen any studies of how tanks proceed with and without skimming.

It's an interesting idea to delay skimming startup or run time. TBS says they do not skim in their live rock holding tanks:

Why are reef tank rocks devoid of life?

Do you know if bacteria (nitrifying) have a preference on what media they prefer? I did a Google fest a couple of years ago on this, plastic is preferred by nitrifiers it appears.

www.reef2reef.com

Some of the most beautiful TBS tanks are very simple breeders with no skimmer, no dosing, no uv, no socks...just water changes.

Btw, we hold ocean farmed rock in natural sea water; no skimming, no dosing, no carbon, no socks, etc. Heavy particulates in the water column at the farm (and in our holding system) maintain the needs of live rock lifeforms long term.

Because my focus is diversity of filter feeders, I find that the (POC) organics removed by a skimmer interfere with the microbial food web. Ken Feldman research on carbon dosing with protein skimmers postulated that the skewing of microbial populations in bulk water could contribute to “old tank syndrome”.

For certain, gas exchange is critical in marine aquariums, but that does not require a protein skimmer.

 

[Lasse]

For certain, gas exchange is critical in marine aquariums, but that does not require a protein skimmer.

Space, low noise, maximum residence time, correct size of air bubbles, amount of water flowing through makes the skimmer the maximum gas equalizer that can be made - IMO. The only thing that can come close to this is a counter-current trickle filter (water in one direction - air in the other). But it makes more noise, takes up more space and is generally more difficult to handle.

In the start - I run my skimmer overflooding - the skimmate get back in the system

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Subsea]

Space, low noise, maximum residence time, correct size of air bubbles, amount of water flowing through makes the skimmer the maximum gas equalizer that can be made - IMO. The only thing that can come close to this is a counter-current trickle filter (water in one direction - air in the other). But it makes more noise, takes up more space and is generally more difficult to handle.

In the start - I run my skimmer overflooding - the skimmate get back in the system

Sincerely Lasse

Lassie,
If I recall, you discharged skimmate under a plenum. How is that working out?

On a differrent note, I am considering using a calcium reactor on seaweed growout systems. While I didn’t see a problem with effluent low pH on a seaweed tank, would using a second reactor with dolomite make sense to you?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Lassie,
If I recall, you discharged skimmate under a plenum. How is that working out?

On a differrent note, I am considering using a calcium reactor on seaweed growout systems. While I didn’t see a problem with effluent low pH on a seaweed tank, would using a second reactor with dolomite make sense to you?

Why? You mean a second chamber? I'd put aragonite in it unless magnesium is low. Too much dolomite will cause magnesium to rise.

 

[Subsea]

Why? You mean a second chamber? I'd put aragonite in it unless magnesium is low. Too much dolomite will cause magnesium to rise.

Because of the high uptake of calcium & magnesium by seaweed, I presently dose liquid kelp concentrate in ornamental seaweed growout tanks. In an effort to provide an inorganic source of those nutrients, I am considering a calcium reactor whose low pH effluent go thru a second media reactor of dolomite. This is an experiment in maximizing production. With seaweed doubling its mass every 14 days, it consumes a lot of calcium & magnesium.