Adding many new fish at once: unforseen issues?

[zalick]

My current tank is 300g and saying it's lightly stocked fishwise is generous.

I currently have a royal gramma, magnificent foxface, sleeper banded goby and black/white ocellaris.

It's taken me 7 years to figure out which fish I finally wanted for this tank. Is that slow?

The tank has been up in it's current form for about 7 years. Due to the light stocking, I've been feeding for probably close to 10 fish in order to get everyone food. The Foxface is a PIG. My youngest fish is the Foxface at about 5 years old.

I'd like to add the following 10 fish all at once:
Carpenters flasher wrasse
Splendid pintail fairy wrasse
Darwin clownfish (small)
Randall's assessor basslett
Lyretail Anthia x5
Purple firefish


Given my current bioload and that I'd only be increasing feeding by about 5 fish worth over my current feeding, I assume my bacterial population will ramp up quickly. Is that a safe assumption?

Do you see any comparability issues by introducing these all at once to the current inhabitants? (Beyond potential issue with the clowns). If the new clown didn't get along with my current clown, the new one would have a new home in my frag tank.

Any other issues with adding this many fish at once?

 

[SPR1968]

I think with a tank that size and 7 years old you will be fine

I regularly add 3 or 4 at once and added 30 on the first day it was set up!

 

[zalick]

I think with a tank that size and 7 years old you will be fine

I regularly add 3 or 4 at once and added 30 on the first day it was set up!

Thanks!

I'm purchasing quarantined fish and if I can get more off my list at the same time, that would be ideal. Good to know I could add quite a bit more of needed! I've also got a gallon of Amquel in case of emergency.

 

[Uncle99]

Keep a tight lid on, the purple fire fish is going to be very spooked. That’s big water so enjoy.

 

[zalick]

Keep a tight lid on, the purple fire fish is going to be very spooked. That’s big water so enjoy.

This fish is one of my concerns actually. I had one a few years ago and it had trouble competing for food with just the few other fish. It would dart back in it's hole when the Foxface would bulldoze around eating all the food. For the first year it did fine but it eventually it became to afraid to come out to eat and it slowly died. . I also had a lawnmower blenny that could have been bullying it. (Never observed) It was MEAN. I'd often see perfectly round bite marks on the side of my Foxface.... Despite a constantly full belly of algae every day, it also died. Presumably lack of nutrition because it wouldnt eat anything else besides the algae on the rocks.

I was hoping more fish, including the anthias, would give a firefish more courage to be out and about.

 

[brandon429]

Even though disease is the main regulator here (nice qt sourcing that will help) along with behavior and rank-and-file balance, there’s a small snippet from updated cycling rules that applies to the original question: bacteria do not ramp up or down on surface area in response to a bioload, forums made that up 25 years ago and have been passing it around.

after a cycle, the collective surface area in a reef can carry X number of fish and it’s controlled by surface area not numbers of bacterial colonies. X variable does not change with our feeding or current bioload, it’s set by the contact area for wastewater and active surfaces. If x=ten fish and we only have two, there isn’t ramp up time required to add eight more regarding ammonia control, the system instantly assumes the ability. Ive never seen one post in reefing where a new bioload exceeded ability of normal live rock to handle.


**running at only two fish does NOT mean the surface area has corresponding less bacteria. My reef has been fallow for fifteen years as inverts/ coral only and the surfaces are exactly as active and dense with bacteria as if it had ten fish all this time. It can instantly house fish were they to be added.

the surface area in a reef tank doesn’t expand if more bacteria grows on surfaces- it lessens, the opposite of what we’d assumed. We have been instantly removing sandbeds in the sand rinse thread for five years, no ramp down time given, due to this rule- it works in reverse as well.

live rocks are just able to instantly handle more bioload and nobody has found the limit yet, anything practical for the size of the tank will work.

indeed live rock is so powerful, we could remove your entire sandbed on the day you add the new fish and it still wouldnt be a lack of bacteria or surface area

I have never seen one iota instance in reefing where live rock didnt handle the entire bioload expected not one time in twenty years. Api and Red Sea disagrees with me let the record reflect, just not seneye it agrees

 

[zalick]

Even though disease is the main regulator here (nice qt sourcing that will help) along with behavior and rank-and-file balance, there’s a small snippet from updated cycling rules that applies to the original question: bacteria do not ramp up or down on surface area in response to a bioload, forums made that up 25 years ago and have been passing it around.

after a cycle, the collective surface area in a reef can carry X number of fish and it’s controlled by surface area not numbers of bacterial colonies. X variable does not change with our feeding or current bioload, it’s set by the contact area for wastewater and active surfaces. If x=ten fish and we only have two, there isn’t ramp up time required to add eight more regarding ammonia control, the system instantly assumes the ability. Ive never seen one post in reefing where a new bioload exceeded ability of normal live rock to handle.


**running at only two fish does NOT mean the surface area has corresponding less bacteria. My reef has been fallow for fifteen years as inverts/ coral only and the surfaces are exactly as active and dense with bacteria as if it had ten fish all this time. It can instantly house fish were they to be added.

the surface area in a reef tank doesn’t expand if more bacteria grows on surfaces- it lessens, the opposite of what we’d assumed. We have been instantly removing sandbeds in the sand rinse thread for five years, no ramp down time given, due to this rule- it works in reverse as well.

live rocks are just able to instantly handle more bioload and nobody has found the limit yet, anything practical for the size of the tank will work.

indeed live rock is so powerful, we could remove your entire sandbed on the day you add the new fish and it still wouldnt be a lack of bacteria or surface area

I have never seen one iota instance in reefing where live rock didnt handle the entire bioload expected not one time in twenty years.

That makes perfect sense now that I look at it that way. It's not like the surface of my rock is barren on 90% and bacteria only on 10% to support my 4 fish.

 

[brandon429]

It’s truly a fascinating science, surface area mechanics

even though mnfish is tired of seeing this analogy I don’t have a better one: This letter ——> W

represents typical live rock sectioning exposed to water, bacteria line the two V channels and water flows though- two V’s side by side, and has lots of surface area contact on the inside, and outside of the shape. the thinnest the veneer of bacteria on surfaces is the most contact area touching wastewater for efficient filtration.


if we fill in the interstices with bacteria or mulm, the water sees an ‘O’ presentation and all the middle surface area is gone and filtration drops orders simply because we added or wanted more bacteria, this is a chief reason we told tank owners in frozen Texas not to be dosing bottled bac it’s not indicated post cycle, in anyone’s tank.

if there’s ever a time we think our live rock isn’t enough, we add more surface area and it will self activate, adding more bacteria just takes more oxygen out of the system and with no attachment spaces it’s of no benefit...its a harm our tanks tolerate and bottle bac sellers get rich from.

applying strong surface area science allows for infinite safe tank moves and protective designs.

**if polled, 100% of reefers wouldn’t agree with anything I’ve said so that makes it ten times more fun to study. It’s a completely new concept for reefing. If we were waiting on bottle bac sellers to tell us this info, expect another couple decades as the info directly affects bottom line.

due to training, just about every reefer would buy new bac to add with new fish, it’s a total hoax and a very convenient one for the sellers.

 

[Chrysemys]

I agree that a 300g tank should have no problem keeping up with the added bioload. 7 years is a long time to find the “right” fish. That is how long it took me to finally decide to get married.

My reef has been fallow for fifteen years as inverts/ coral only and the surfaces are exactly as active and dense with bacteria as if it had ten fish all this time. It can instantly house fish were they to be added.

I do have one question about this though... I follow everything related to surface area, but I question how would all that surface area be covered with the nitrifying bacteria if there wasn’t the a source of food to support it. Or is it a matter of the bacteria multiply so quickly they are able to keep up with the added bioload. I ask because I think if you scale this down to a much smaller system you could overload current bacteria colony. In a 300g system, no...waste is going to be so diluted there is plenty of time for any needed bacterial increase to occur. In a 10 - 20 gallon system is there?

 

[brandon429]

These are my opinions on that excellent question based on what we see in post patterns and in scaling exercises: my reef has had pounds of coral feed dumped into it and water changed over the years, that's the equalizer making bacteria fed just as if they're fish-fed. I have about 5 pounds of live rock in my pico, five pounds of live rock set in a 20 gallon tank right dead center flow can handle probably 3-5 clownfish or damsels and their daily feed and waste, just guessing a common bioload. The rocks are able now to carry them should that test be needed

removing the sandbed from a living reef instantly is the same bioload tripler to the existing live rocks.

ways bacteria get fed with or without fish:

-assembling an aquarium is filthy process, non reef bacteria are input and they bloom due to hydration and then die in cycles, everyday every hour, because they're not marine adapted. decaying invisible biomass=constant trace ammonia even during fallow tests.

-any form of organic pocketing is tucked away feed for bacteria for years. years worth as a carry pack... this isn't even counting wafting in skin cells, gnats, all kinds of micro life we found stuck to bug traps that have laid on a carpeted floor a few weeks. active exchange is occurring; fish are merely in addition. removing them is removing one puzzle piece in a feeding pathway highway.


I was able to get Dr. Tim to respond to that specific question in a thread and he said that existing bacteria can simply ramp up oxidation machinery at the cellular level, increasing or decreasing output per bacterium, essentially.

it wasn't that they had to double in numbers it was that they can simply handle more uptake, quickly.

 

[ca1ore]

Unforeseen issues are, of course, unforeseeable (ok, sorry, I can be literal guy sometimes). On a long running tank, hard to see that the biofilter would have trouble adjusting to the new load. Maybe you just increase the food by less than the fish increase initially, and work up. Of the fish you propose adding, only the lyretails are a major impact on food input. Not because they eat that much, but because you have to feed more frequently and the PIG is going to eat most of it. Other than potentially the clown, I don't see any major incompatibility problems. Previous point about a cover is a good one. Carpenter wrasse is a highly motivated jumper. I see no greater worry about disease frankly by introducing 10 at once versus 10 sequentially.

 

[zalick]

@brandon429 - I’m receiving an order of QT fish on Thursday. I think it will be about 16-17 small fish. All 2” or less. 10 azure damsels. There is absolutely enough live rock to handle at least 30 fish going by traditional metrics. I don’t have a seneye but I will put an ammonia badge and try to do daily testing for a week to collect some data and see if there is any measurable ammonia spike. My guess is the answer will be no.

 

[brandon429]

hey check this out, we had a chance to peruse this issue on a work thread, therefore I think your ammonia control will be just fine:

 

[brandon429]

Suddenly add 20 fish to Established tank

Hi Reefers I need some advice from experts here. So my 65 gallon tank is about 2 years old and was housing 4 fish and around 20+ anemone. Recently I converted into a clownfish harem by adding 20 clownfish all at one time. Suppose 20 is a good number for them not to fight. Right now...

www.reef2reef.com

this test here plays up well that rule in surface area dynamics where surfaces can instantly handle more bioload than they're used to.

we got only lucky his ammonia test complied and didn't report a .5 like many will. even if it did, the rule would stay the same and the thread would transform into thirty people disagreeing with me 100%

its the ammonia test kits that are finicky, not the rule. adding many new fish is indeed more ammonia than previous, many color tube kits will overreport and sustain that report but not seneye and not all color tube kits.

we use the rule to identify when ammonia kits are misreading in fact...all our reefs have a shock absorber system built in for free ammonia and even if one or some of the fish die after addition and can't be removed, the shock absorber will still handle things fine. itd take a hundred dead fish left inside anyway to wreck a 300 g/ massive dilution