An interesting Idea about 'New tanks'

[Doreno]

I can't remember exactly where I read this, maybe in the KZ manual, but it said that before starting a new system, you must first flush the entire system by osmosis water with all the installed equipment into the sump in this way for several days. Then I did not give it much importance, but now it seems more than reasonable.

 

[Dan_P]

I have read at least a couple posts (or a couple thousand) - about the importance of tank maturity when adding more 'finicky' corals, anemones, etc. Many seem to feel this is due to lack of biodiversity. I have a problem with this philosophy, simply because tanks get older - from what I understand biodiversity decreases rather than the other way around. Anyway, the idea:

Could part of 'new tank' issues relate to all of the new equipment releasing various toxins (for example, its well described that tin can be released from PVC plumbing, and that this significantly decreases as the tank ages). Could there be other minerals, metals, etc - that could be being released in levels that though they may not kill outright SPS, anemones, etc - but enough to make them do poorly - just food for thought? Comments? @brandon429? @taricha?

I think your idea warrants looking into. I would think that it will not be a major success factor.

We should look to aquarist skills as the major factor that determines the success of any animal husbandry activity, from keeping cats, dogs, and hamsters to growing coral and Chaeto. The lack of self awareness of how little we know about setting up a saltwater aquarium and keeping coral makes us look for all sorts of culprits to blame for our lack of success. It is a never ending witch hunt for some.

 

[Theulli]

I have read at least a couple posts (or a couple thousand) - about the importance of tank maturity when adding more 'finicky' corals, anemones, etc. Many seem to feel this is due to lack of biodiversity. I have a problem with this philosophy, simply because tanks get older - from what I understand biodiversity decreases rather than the other way around. Anyway, the idea:

Could part of 'new tank' issues relate to all of the new equipment releasing various toxins (for example, its well described that tin can be released from PVC plumbing, and that this significantly decreases as the tank ages). Could there be other minerals, metals, etc - that could be being released in levels that though they may not kill outright SPS, anemones, etc - but enough to make them do poorly - just food for thought? Comments? @brandon429? @taricha?

Interesting - my theory had been that people get a new tank, they test it to death for nitrates and ammonia, maybe phosphates, and that in the background other benchmarks like alkalinity and PH are fluctuating as the tank settles in.

I based this theory upon randomly pondering, so it shouldn't be taken too seriously

 

[NabberNate]

All I know is that when I was younger I had no where near the sophistication in equipment compared to what I have now (55 gallon with a whisper3 filter alternating carbon packs and that's pretty much it) and I had no where near the headaches with various algae cycles as I do now. Only real difference was I had a few pieces of real live rock in my tank that grew tons of interesting things over time that I never intentionally added and I pretty much left things alone. I tested for salinity and that's about it. Had a yellow tang, lionfish, gray angel, tomato clown, anenome and some damsels.

 

[Paul B]

All I know is that when I was younger I had no where near the sophistication in equipment compared to what I have now

I don't think I now have any more sophisticated equipment now than I did 50 years ago. Maybe an alk and calcium test kit, but I think thats about it.

 

[mcwhng]

Many seem to feel this is due to lack of biodiversity. I have a problem with this philosophy, simply because tanks get older - from what I understand biodiversity decreases rather than the other way around. Anyway, the idea:

If this had nothing to do with your premise why did you put it in there.

I haven't experienced the problems you like to discuss and find magical causes to.
So I don't feel comfortable commenting on them.

I stuck a nem in a new tank that was 20 days old. It has lived through a move to a new house and 2 further tank upgrades. It's over there right now.

I am 99.2% sure new tank problems are caused by new tank owners.

If the initial problems are due to new tank owners then how do you explain the problems encountered by Mike Paletta, Sanjay, and other veteran, experienced reefers who started tanks with dry rock and then encountered similar issues?? I don’t think this is caused by just one factor. May be multifactorial-chemistry imbalance, bacterial imbalance, unknown toxins released by new equipment, etc. Reefing isn’t usually this simple, otherwise we’d all have no reason to comment.

 

[GlassMunky]

PS - I believe that @AquaBiomics research somewhat confirms my comment about biodiversity, but even if it is incorrect, the question still stands - whether part of 'new tank' syndrome relates to tin, etc release - from various new equipment

Aquabiomics tests are worthless and unreliable IMO. i used them for about 6 months before i stopped wasting my money. take all of that info with a giant grain of salt.
youd be better off getting ICP tests if you think that its "toxins" from new equipment

 

[WVNed]

If the initial problems are due to new tank owners then how do you explain the problems encountered by Mike Paletta, Sanjay, and other veteran, experienced reefers who started tanks with dry rock and then encountered similar issues?? I don’t think this is caused by just one factor. May be multifactorial-chemistry imbalance, bacterial imbalance, unknown toxins released by new equipment, etc. Reefing isn’t usually this simple, otherwise we’d all have no reason to comment.

If initial problems are due to a new tank how do you explain the people that don't have them.

All new tanks are pretty much the same. All tank owners are not. Even experienced people can screw up.

Mystery toxins. If new equipment released toxins dont you think everyone would know by now. It isnt like reefing started last week.
All those scary things we cant see like bacteria and chemicals must be at fault. Cause we be doin it perfect.
Why is my salinity screwed up and this refractodoodad and my hydromometer dont agree?

 

[MnFish1]

Aquabiomics tests are worthless and unreliable IMO. i used them for about 6 months before i stopped wasting my money. take all of that info with a giant grain of salt.
youd be better off getting ICP tests if you think that its "toxins" from new equipment

I do not think that Aquabiomics tests are the be all and end all. BUT - they do show what common sense suggests - the in individual tanks, microbial diversity decreases over time.

PS - ICP tests cannot measure organic chemicals only individual elements - so they are not helpful in this manner

 

[MnFish1]

If initial problems are due to a new tank how do you explain the people that don't have them.

All new tanks are pretty much the same. All tank owners are not. Even experienced people can screw up.

Mystery toxins. If new equipment released toxins dont you think everyone would know by now. It isnt like reefing started last week.
All those scary things we cant see like bacteria and chemicals must be at fault. Cause we be doin it perfect.
Why is my salinity screwed up and this refractodoodad and my hydromometer dont agree?

Seems like - you're implying things that others are not saying. There is no doubt that you are at least partly correct - that difficulty with new tanks is multifactorial - and that experience plays a role. No one is disagreeing with you.

All new tanks are definitely NOT the same. Some are made with cheap glass. Some people run their tanks for months and then do a complete water change, some use carbon, Some equipment is made with cheap materials, some people have a full component of live rock, etc.

At least one thing that IS new - is ICP and other testing. So - when someone with just a tank, rock, and the usual filters sends an ICP test and it has a significantly high tin level - where would you think that comes from? Its not a mystery chemical - its measured by a laboratory? If the salt and water don't have tin, (the RODI and the freshly mixed salt), where do you think its coming from? The good news in all of this is that organisms can tolerate a fair bit of 'pollution' - look at mercury levels in tuna, PCB's in whales, etc. My tendency is to agree with you that ICP testing that shows an elevated lithium level (for some unknown reason for an example) - may not be something to be concerned about.

 

[GlassMunky]

I do not think that Aquabiomics tests are the be all and end all. BUT - they do show what common sense suggests - the in individual tanks, microbial diversity decreases over time.

PS - ICP tests cannot measure organic chemicals only individual elements - so they are not helpful in this manner

I just found the tests to be completely random with results… for months my tank had no pathogens, then randomly one showed up for a month and then disappeared the following month even though literally nothing was added or changed. I just think the tech is too new and not reliable from test to test
Just my experiences

 

[Celestion]

Mnfish yes , water polishing to on occasion can help remove some toxics...yes

 

[terraincognita]

I mean there’s also more than a lot to be said about new tanks vs new reefers also.

I’ve haven’t had “new tank syndrome” disasters or problems for years.

a lot of people seem to also just jump at the first sign of nuisance algae’s or other “uglies” when I don’t think a single tank skips the “ugly stage” even if it’s a short one.

 

[Theulli]

Whoops, wrong thread

 

[taricha]

Could part of 'new tank' issues relate to all of the new equipment releasing various toxins (for example, its well described that tin can be released from PVC plumbing, and that this significantly decreases as the tank ages). Could there be other minerals, metals, etc - that could be being released in levels that though they may not kill outright SPS, anemones, etc - but enough to make them do poorly - just food for thought?

I also believe that many organisms take up trace metals like tin, mercury, etc etc - when the number of animals is vastly higher than the concentration of the toxin - these do not necessarily 'damage' the organisms.

There's a few parts to this that could be separated to think about how plausible they are.

1) elevated toxins/trace elements/unnatural substances from new materials
2) are any of these above inhibitory concentrations / no-effect concentrations for important organisms to coral success?
3) are they depleted by exports and broken down by microbes in fairly short time?

The answer to 1) I think we'd agree is yes, that some newly manufactured components will introduce compounds or elements that are foreign to the system. Every new thing has a "new plastic" smell etc.

And 3) seems to be yes as well. This article "Down the drain" gives a breakdown of the elements exported by skimmate, skimmer sludge, and macroalgae (table 2). It seems that in addition to biologically important elements like Fe, every trace element seems to be depleted by exports as well.

The sketchy part of the premise is 2) that these foreign substances are above "no effect" concentrations for the coral or other organisms relevant to vigorous coral growth.

I think this may be unknowable from reading and debate, but might not be easier to answer with a hobby experiment.

If someone got small (2-5 gallon) tanks, each stocked with some coral frags:
One gets new PVC pipes dropped in, new waterfall pump etc. whatever other new items we can think of that might release concerning substances. The other gets the same, but those other items have been previously "cured" in the sump of a large established system for a few weeks.

Mass the coral frags before and after a month or so. If each treatment got two small tanks each, I'd be persuaded by the results either way.

 

[Timfish]

I haven't read all the posts so maybe this has been mentioned. While I doupt there's stuff leaching from new equipment that reaches levels toxic to animals it is a possibility I guess. What I do know is biofilms and fungii and cryptic sponges all have very important roles to play in reef ecosystems and we can't test for them. With @AquaBiomics research we can test for the type of bacterioplankton in the water and that should give su some indication of the beneficial microbial processes in our systems. We still can't test for the types of DOC though, and those directly affect coral holobionts. It seems to me it's the time it takes for these healthy microbial processes to develop is a good explaination for the maturing process we see and the differences we see in various systems.