An interesting Idea about 'New tanks'

[MnFish1]

I'd reeeeeeally be interested in what everyone's DEFINITION of Biodiversity is.....

Everyone is throwing around words without a baseline

(I've found that whenever someone claims an idea, I ask them to teach the idea to me like I'm 10 years old. it soon reveals gaps and cracks in their full understanding of the entire process)

I wonder if you noticed the 2 scientific articles you requested?

You're correct - about people throwing that term around. But - on this site at least - it is 'widely thrown around (inappropriately IMHO). The idea being that the more DIFFERENT types of bacteria, etc etc in our tanks the 'better' they will be. Some even go as far as to say add parasites to your water - it increases 'biodiversity' and thus immunity. Some people add mud.

But - the definition - for a 10 year old: "the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem."

 

[MnFish1]

I dont think its anything to do with new equipment, toxins etc. - Its simply parameters.

Most suggest months to years before keeping species that require maturity purely because tanks settle in time and become fairly "self" levelling in terms of parameters. Im not talking user error where your temp took a swing, im talking the underlying elements that take time to settle. Our tanks are in a constant CYCLE, not just at the beginning stages and people tend to forget/ignore that.

I dont think theres anything else to it. Every coral requires stability, finicky ones more than others. Provide it and theyll grow, dont provide it and theyll fail. New tanks dont often have stability wether testing for it says it does or not.

And yet multiple people have great success starting tanks and adding things immediately. Of course tank success is completely multifactorial - user experience, stability of conditions, coral / fish warfare, etc etc. But - just curious - if 'chemicals' are not an issue (by the way I would consider 'chemicals' a 'parameter' that we can't easily measure).

The topic again came to mind from another thread - where a new tank was set up - an ICP test was sent and high levels of tin were found - and the person was concerned - and it got me thinking - so I started the discussion. Differently phrased - would someone with a tank with high tin levels have less - or more - or the same level of success as someone with no tin?

 

[MnFish1]

Betcha a hobbyist with great husbandry sense could grow an anemone ON two pvc pipes glued together at the bottom of their tank

Which has nothing to do with the discussion at all. except the word PVC was in it. PVC is ONE example. Read the scientific articles I posted - and then we can discuss. In the meantime - it is my opinion that this is supposed to be a friendly site - and your memes - seem a little - sarcastic/insulting. Its a discussion for heavens sake

 

[Jekyl]

These days I check out any time I hear the word "science"

 

[ZoWhat]

The idea being that the more DIFFERENT types of bacteria, etc etc in our tanks the 'better' they will be.

Good to know that more bacteria in one's reef aquarium....the better the tank, the more success with corals and fish

I will strive to get these common waterborne bacteria is my water column:

Escherichia Coli

Campylobacter Jejuni

Salmonella

Legionella Pneumophila

.

 

[LRT]

Which has nothing to do with the discussion at all.

Yeah completely irrelevant to discussion at hand.
I grew a reef in plastic concrete mixing tubs and grew it pretty well actually.
One of the main reasons I tore it down was fact they where plastic and after reading a paper on plastics breaking down and the effects of micro plastics on corals and fish. It did get the better of me.
One point I think that you bring up is interesting and can be found with quick Google search is all the reefers having issues with using plastic, getting dinos and dealing with nuisance algae.
My plastic tub system went through pretty much every nuisance algae imaginable. Sure I made my mistakes in it. But to say bad husbandry would be far from the truth as it was daily work scrubbing tubs, racks, discs ypu name it. Until it finally settled in after about 14 months.
Its a fact alot of reefers do have issues with certain plastics. Ive lived it.
Whether or not that's because they where leaching something in water. Or if it just gave nuisance algae a better anchor to get a hold on. Or if it was it was harder for beneficial bacteria to compete on those serfucas or all or none of the above is beyond me.
I can tell you I never sent an icp test because I did dred seeing the results of using all that plastic.

 

[LiamPM]

And yet multiple people have great success starting tanks and adding things immediately. Of course tank success is completely multifactorial - user experience, stability of conditions, coral / fish warfare, etc etc. But - just curious - if 'chemicals' are not an issue (by the way I would consider 'chemicals' a 'parameter' that we can't easily measure).

The topic again came to mind from another thread - where a new tank was set up - an ICP test was sent and high levels of tin were found - and the person was concerned - and it got me thinking - so I started the discussion. Differently phrased - would someone with a tank with high tin levels have less - or more - or the same level of success as someone with no tin?

Of course - Because every single tank/environment is different to the next. Literally no two are the same so you will always get a success story where there is a fail story too. On a forum board like this all information is generalised and generally speaking the majoirty will fail if adding an large Acropora colony to a 3 day old tank compared to adding it to a 3 year old tank.

Chemicals ARE an issue for some - I just dont think chemicals coming from new equipment is. I dont consider chemicals a perimeter because its a broad term for many different parameters things.

"Would someone with a tank with high tin levels have less - or more - or the same level of success as someone with no tin?" - No way to answer that - Ive seen tanks that have run themselves for years, to then have an ICP done and report back they have dangerous levels of this or that - The ICP simply goes in the bin - The tank spoke for itself. It still boils down to no two tanks are the same. Your tank may die if TIN was added. My tank may flourish. Theres not always an explanation for the environments we keep.

 

[ZoWhat]

These days I check out any time I hear the word "science"

 

[Cell]

This would suggest people would have greater success with used tanks as opposed to new. That phenomenon hasnt been observed, as far as I know, but perhaps we weren't looking for it either.

 

[ScottB]

My key points of agreement:

- Reef success is multifactorial
- Adding live rock/rubble/mud/animals to a closed system introduces the supporting cast of characters needed for a mature stable system. Once the "warring" has subsided, it can be fairly hospitable.
- The manufacture of all our hardware can involve the presence of toxic materials. Care should be taken to remove/reduce introducing those chemicals.
- Flex PVC has some measure of plasticizers which are known to leach in salt water applications. Use silicon hose. (I use silicone radiator hose.)
- Run GAC for a while on start up to help remove/reduce chemical contaminates.

 

[Lost in the Sauce]

I'd reeeeeeally be interested in what everyone's DEFINITION of Biodiversity is.....

Everyone is throwing around words without a baseline

(I've found that whenever someone claims an idea, I ask them to teach the idea to me like I'm 10 years old. it soon reveals gaps and cracks in their full understanding of the entire process)

Ok so why don't you provide your baseline definition of biodiversity for discussion.

 

[ZoWhat]

Ok so why don't you provide your baseline definition of biodiversity for discussion.

I followed the rules of nature.

First off I would never suggest a new reef owner to do anything but keep softies for the first year until natural bacteria cultivates in the tank for 9-12mos.

I follow nature that uses phytoplankton as it basis for cultivating good nurtifying bacteria.

There many different types of phytoplankton ranging from Cyano to Diatoms to Dino to Cocco to simple green algae

I exclusively heavily dose tetraselmis phytoplankton. I would Bridge into a discussion why... but I'm well documented on my past posts on what, why, when and how often. A lot of you won't take the time to read it though....you just want to be validated here on R2R with your own belief systems

The idea that failure to husband more expert level corals or anemones can be blamed on contaminants found in pvc or glues or new equipment is (as previous discussed) a silly notion.

Sorta like a lung cancer patient who smokes blaming the city smog for their cancer.

If a particular element comes back high from an ICP test.... its either coming from a dosing method (including the dry salt mix) ....or....from the water source they are using.

To wrap this up. This is a hobby of cultivating an ecosystem inside a small stupid glass box. Cultivation takes time for all ionic chemical processes to not only develop properly but balance out.

You want to naturally kick start your tank. Do what the ocean does.... use tetraselmis phytoplankton as a bottom-of-the-pyramid process to establish a "biodiverse" tank.



.

 

[LRT]

I followed the rules of nature.

First off I would never suggest a new reef owner to do anything but keep softies for the first year until natural bacteria cultivates in the tank for 9-12mos.

I follow nature that uses phytoplankton as it basis for cultivating good nurtifying bacteria.

There many different types of phytoplankton ranging from Cyano to Diatoms to Dino to Cocco to simple green algae

I exclusively heavily dose tetraselmis phytoplankton. I would Bridge into a discussion why... but I'm well documented on my past posts on what, why, when and how often. A lot of you won't take the time to read it though....you just want to be validated here on R2R with your own thoughts

The idea that failure to husband more expert level corals or anemones can be blamed on contaminants found in pvc or glues or new equipment is (as previous discussed) a silly notion.

Sorta like a lung cancer patient who smokes blaming the city smog for their cancer.

If a particular element comes back high, out if range from an ICP test.... its either coming from a dosing method or from the water source they are using.

To wrap this up. This is a hobby of cultivating an ecosystem inside a small stupid glass box. Cultivation takes time for all ionic chemicals process to develop and balance out.

You want to naturally kick start your tank. Do what the ocean does.... use tetraselmis phytoplankton are to bottom of the pyramid to establish a "biodiverse" tank.



.

Do you have any papers and can you prove tetraselmis phytoplankton is any better for our dumb glass boxes than let's say reef roids or any other similar dry food we feed our corals?
I have seen the posts with people having great success using it but can tell you it never did anything for me in those ways in my stupid plastic tubs.
Ive tried them all and never seen my system or corals react to anything besides reef roids.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of chemicals and toxins hindering or being harmful to bacterial colonies on our reefs is kind of silly.

 

[terraincognita]

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.

Biodiversity definitely does not decrease, what will decrease possibly is certain microfauna that something in your tank is eating, a healthy tank should still be able to maintain a level of that microfauna, I don't think anything could totally make extinct any type of microfauna in the tank? Also maybe people get "pod bursts" which then seem to "diminish" but more likely they find refuge in the rockwork, sand and sumps.

I could see it reaching a peak, and slowly declining to leveling out. But never decreasing for all time?

I know that wasn't the point of your thread but just wanted to talk about that, not sure where you heard it decreases long run? Additionally since you're addressing "new tank syndrome" there's absolutely no way you would ever see a statistical graph of scientific measuring of biodiversity in a tank decreasing within the first 1-2 years. It would only increase in that time, thus definitely why a lot of people talk about it helping handle CERTAIN new tank syndrome situations like certain algaes, and dinos, etc.

Additionally every single tank has it's own situation. I think there are TIMES When a tank could have toxins being released, but is that happening with every single set up, I doubt, I think it's few and far between tbh. I don't think the leaking toxins from PVC and Glue on plumbed set-ups has a big factor.

It more about the overall surface area becoming coated with living bacteria and the overall "Ecosystem" which is completely separate from the "Nitrogen Cycle", some people mix up an established system vs a system capable of sustaining life.

Could there be certain unnatural elements in the water that are stunting bacteria, microfauna, and other growth YES ABSOLUTELY. I've thought that myself many times.

Some of the Expoy's and Cements we use maybe as well are getting wet before fully curing therefore releasing trace amounts of whatever they're made of into the water, it's hard to find a composition list of exact ingredients for some of the reef epoxies we use. But then again that's all speculation. Someone would need to do a lab analysis of the water throughout the whole process. But is that actually a problem. Who knows?!? It's all about you being able to spot, and just kind of "know or feel" with the force if that is really what could be going on.

There's no way you could take a dallop of sand from a new tank, vs a 2-5 year established tank, and not find the sand in the established tank with 2x or more life.

I think it would just apply to the entire surface area.

I don't think we will ever completely understand the atomic and microscopic changes that a reef tank goes through within the first 6 months to a year. You'd have to set up a reef system in a completely lab tested environment with many sets of microscopes in different areas with a constant monitoring and ID of everything going on on a microscopic level.

No one's gonna spend that money for this hobby at that time. Maybe if we found something in saltwater that cured cancer .

 

[Goaway]

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 don't want to get into it with some other members here. So..
From my own experiences, new equipment can be FILTHY. It's covered in oil and weird fibers. The smell is just synthetic. No I don't want that cycling with my water. That stuff gets a deep clean with vinegar, peroxide, what ever in my household I can through at it and safely remove.
If I have too it will run for a week with its own water changes.
Live rock and sand is great, things die all the time. We can't keep it all alive. And what we can keep alive will either help us, or torment us.

So, can new equipment cause issues? I would rather not find out. My guess is depends. If it looks nasty and oily, you might want to get it deep cleaned.

 

[MnFish1]

Good to know that more bacteria in one's reef aquarium....the better the tank, the more success with corals and fish

I will strive to get these common waterborne bacteria is my water column:

Escherichia Coli

Campylobacter Jejuni

Salmonella

Legionella Pneumophila

.

I literally think either you aren't reading - or are just trying to stir up trouble or perhaps are in fact just a 'troll' as someone else said. You asked me for the definition of biodiversity. I gave you the definition that most people HERE - use. I did not say I agreed with it. I then also followed your request and gave you the '10 year olds version' that MOST people use. I said in the OP - I do not think there is a huge benefit for 'biodiversity' on its own sake in a reef tank. I do not think human pathogens should be present in a reef tank. Your posts seem to get more and more off topic/off base with each try.

 

[MnFish1]

Chemicals ARE an issue for some - I just dont think chemicals coming from new equipment is. I dont consider chemicals a perimeter because its a broad term for many different parameters things.

Thanks - that was the only purpose for phrasing the question/discussion. 1. Most people have no idea that there even are chemicals leaching from plastics.
2. Just like you suggest, there is not good data out there (i.e. you said you don't 'think' chemicals coming from new equipment is a problem).

In the end - I think they COULD be one problem in a multifactorial situation. Like I think I've stated - a tin level of xx in a tank full of coral each of which is absorbing only a small amount may have a much different affect than in a tank with 1 anemone and a clownfish with the same concentration of xx. Likewise, Tin comes in multiple forms - which may be more or less toxic at different pH. PS - I'm only using tin - because I dont want to list 100 chemicals. In the old days, the standard recommendation was 'fill up your tank with fresh water, run it several days (obviously to test for leaks) - but also remove hopefully some of the chemical contaminants etc.

PS - my fairly strong opinion is that I dont like ICP testing - 1. Like you said - many people ignore (or panic) over the results. 2. The results are not always that reproducible. 3. The solution to most of the issues (of excessive chemicals) is water changes and 4. ICP tests do not measure organic toxins that may or may not be present.

 

[MnFish1]

Biodiversity definitely does not decrease, what will decrease possibly is certain microfauna that something in your tank is eating, a healthy tank should still be able to maintain a level of that microfauna, I don't think anything could totally make extinct any type of microfauna in the tank? Also maybe people get "pod bursts" which then seem to "diminish" but more likely they find refuge in the rockwork, sand and sumps.

I could see it reaching a peak, and slowly declining to leveling out. But never decreasing for all time?

I know that wasn't the point of your thread but just wanted to talk about that, not sure where you heard it decreases long run? Additionally since you're addressing "new tank syndrome" there's absolutely no way you would ever see a statistical graph of scientific measuring of biodiversity in a tank decreasing within the first 1-2 years. It would only increase in that time, thus definitely why a lot of people talk about it helping handle CERTAIN new tank syndrome situations like certain algaes, and dinos, etc.

Additionally every single tank has it's own situation. I think there are TIMES When a tank could have toxins being released, but is that happening with every single set up, I doubt, I think it's few and far between tbh. I don't think the leaking toxins from PVC and Glue on plumbed set-ups has a big factor.

It more about the overall surface area becoming coated with living bacteria and the overall "Ecosystem" which is completely separate from the "Nitrogen Cycle", some people mix up an established system vs a system capable of sustaining life.

Could there be certain unnatural elements in the water that are stunting bacteria, microfauna, and other growth YES ABSOLUTELY. I've thought that myself many times.

Some of the Expoy's and Cements we use maybe as well are getting wet before fully curing therefore releasing trace amounts of whatever they're made of into the water, it's hard to find a composition list of exact ingredients for some of the reef epoxies we use. But then again that's all speculation. Someone would need to do a lab analysis of the water throughout the whole process. But is that actually a problem. Who knows?!? It's all about you being able to spot, and just kind of "know or feel" with the force if that is really what could be going on.

There's no way you could take a dallop of sand from a new tank, vs a 2-5 year established tank, and not find the sand in the established tank with 2x or more life.

I think it would just apply to the entire surface area.

I don't think we will ever completely understand the atomic and microscopic changes that a reef tank goes through within the first 6 months to a year. You'd have to set up a reef system in a completely lab tested environment with many sets of microscopes in different areas with a constant monitoring and ID of everything going on on a microscopic level.

No one's gonna spend that money for this hobby at that time. Maybe if we found something in saltwater that cured cancer .

A couple comments - some I've already given my opinion on. I tagged @AquaBiomics - who has done bacterial studies on thousands of tanks. Over time - once reaching its saturation, bioDIVERSITY, not bioMASS tends to decrease, as various microbes, fungi, viruses, protozoa, algae, find their niche and out-compete other species.

There are several; studies out there - suggesting that adding new bacteria to a tank (i.e. an established tank) - will not add more 'diversity'. instead 1 of 2 things will happen - either the new additions will outcompete the old - and establish themselves - or the new additions will simply die off. Look at it this way - if you took 100 acres, added 2 lions, 200 sheep, 200 goats, 200 pigs - and just looking at the 'animals' when considering biodiversity. In a couple years which type and how many animals do you think would be alive? Would there be more or less 'biodiversity'. My understanding - is that in a closed system like our tanks or the fairy silly example I used above is extremely difficult to control/increase past a certain point.

Certainly - during the first several months of owning an aquarium, biodiversity is increasing each time we add a fish, or a coral or a crab - and all of those things are going to contain new life as well. Eventually that will peak - and start to decline - and my guess (depending on when you stop adding new stuff) is that happens shortly after you start adding new animals.

 

[MnFish1]

I followed the rules of nature.

First off I would never suggest a new reef owner to do anything but keep softies for the first year until natural bacteria cultivates in the tank for 9-12mos.

I follow nature that uses phytoplankton as it basis for cultivating good nurtifying bacteria.

There many different types of phytoplankton ranging from Cyano to Diatoms to Dino to Cocco to simple green algae

I exclusively heavily dose tetraselmis phytoplankton. I would Bridge into a discussion why... but I'm well documented on my past posts on what, why, when and how often. A lot of you won't take the time to read it though....you just want to be validated here on R2R with your own belief systems

The idea that failure to husband more expert level corals or anemones can be blamed on contaminants found in pvc or glues or new equipment is (as previous discussed) a silly notion.

Sorta like a lung cancer patient who smokes blaming the city smog for their cancer.

If a particular element comes back high from an ICP test.... its either coming from a dosing method (including the dry salt mix) ....or....from the water source they are using.

To wrap this up. This is a hobby of cultivating an ecosystem inside a small stupid glass box. Cultivation takes time for all ionic chemical processes to not only develop properly but balance out.

You want to naturally kick start your tank. Do what the ocean does.... use tetraselmis phytoplankton as a bottom-of-the-pyramid process to establish a "biodiverse" tank.



.

Not quite sure I disagree with much of what you're saying - but the question the guy (I assume a guy) asked you was 'what is your definition of biodiversity'? I do not see how using one type of phytoplankton has anything to do with promoting biodiversity?

 

[MnFish1]

I am 99.2% sure it all has to do with biodiversity. Please explain to me how a tank started with dry rock and sand (0 biodiversity) can somehow decrease in biodiversity over time?
The point stands if a tank is started with live rock, but a tank started with dry rock can not decrease in biodiversity.
It can increase and plateau over time, and then decrease, but you can't start with 0 biodiversity and then go negative. I would agree with you for the most part, but it all depends on where you start. Again, live rock from the ocean will decrease over time, but not dry rock.

To clarify - I can't remember if I answered you. this is my opinion of how it works. In a new tank with dry rock the diversity on a scale of 1-10 is 1. As things are added, fish, coral, CUC, food, etc - the diversity increases. BUT - it will peak. If you start a tank with Live rock, and add fish right away - it will also likely be near its peak of biodiversity. Which over time - will decrease. Of course - the tank starting out at 1 is not going to go negative - nor was that suggested.

The point I've tried to make is that its probably the 'Biomass' rather than 'biodiversity' that differentiates the ability of various toxins to be taking up into organisms. Since - the older a tank is (after its plateau) - the less diverse in general it becomes.