An interesting Idea about 'New tanks'

[ZoWhat]

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)

 

[Zeal]

I threw a chunk of that Brightwell Xport-NO3 Dimpled Brick that was marinating in the sump of my older tank for 2 years into my new Waterbox just because it felt like the right thing to do... In my mind, it is lol

Also added some random live rock from someone else's tank, live sand and 10G of WC water from my older tank...

Oh and 4oz of Turbostart. Now if all that doesn't get a cycle started or at least skipped I don't know what will.

Edit: Oh and a bag of Aquachar that im willing to bet is packed with bacteria

Edit: And a small bag of RowaPhos. Says on their instructions it a good idea to a little bit to a new tank

 

[MnFish1]

I’ve found that starting a tank with live rock from an existing tank (at least 5 years old) eliminates the issues.
these tanks have new equipment and PVC. It’s been set up for about a week (using rock I’ve had for 15+ years)
So many people (myself included) start with dry rock and this takes months to even begin getting established. I for one do not use that bacteria in a bottle stuff that many use these days and I see far less issues starting new tanks with dry. I think starting with dry rock as a beginner is a huge mistake.

Flame back is in there because he could not behave with LPS
To be honest it all comes down to the rock, a tank started with dry rock will have 0 biodiversity, while one started with true live rock from the ocean may have more biodiversity than one started with live rock that has been in a tank for many years. This is because much of the biodiversity from the ocean will not survive the shipping and the changes in water, ultimately leading to a cycle either way. So to your point, rock harvested from the ocean would see a decrease in biodiversity over time, while dry rock can only increase over time, with “aquacultured” rock having a stable medium. Hope this helps

Thanks - I too have done exactly what you said - taking a smaller tank - and putting it into new equipment (tank, sump, pumps, etc) - and had no cycle and no problems. I think where I disagree (slightly) - or at least will comment is - when I have done this - since I was moving from a 70 gallon to a 150 gallon tank, I had to add more rock. After a couple months that rock (dry) looked identical to my 'old rock'. So - while 'biomass' increased - biodiversity probably did not.

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. Here is an example:

Take a new tank with all new equipment and new plumbing, etc etc, add dry rock and lets say an 'anemone' or a couple small frags. If my idea (which I brought up for just this type of discussion as compared to a statement of fact) were true, these frags would do less well than a tank with new equipment - or even a tank where several large colonies of the same coral were added.

Just to be clear - I brought this up not as a statement of fact - but a theory to discuss.

 

[WVNed]

I have used a lot of PVC glue over the years. My system right now has about 60 feet of PVC and glued joints.
A really big new skimmer. New Stock tanks. I generally put in service after 4 hours drying time.

No problems.

Shrug.

 

[Jekyl]

 

[MnFish1]

Couldn't you just start a new tank with all brand new equipment and run some icp tests to see if any of the brand new equipment is an issue?

Yes - thats been done. With various levels of especially tin - which seems to have elevated levels. The question was whether other chemicals can leach from plastics, etc - and cause problems - which would lessen over time

EDIT - PS - Organic compounds will not show up in an ICP.

 

[Dolphins18]

Thanks - I too have done exactly what you said - taking a smaller tank - and putting it into new equipment (tank, sump, pumps, etc) - and had no cycle and no problems. I think where I disagree (slightly) - or at least will comment is - when I have done this - since I was moving from a 70 gallon to a 150 gallon tank, I had to add more rock. After a couple months that rock (dry) looked identical to my 'old rock'. So - while 'biomass' increased - biodiversity probably did not.

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. Here is an example:

Take a new tank with all new equipment and new plumbing, etc etc, add dry rock and lets say an 'anemone' or a couple small frags. If my idea (which I brought up for just this type of discussion as compared to a statement of fact) were true, these frags would do less well than a tank with new equipment - or even a tank where several large colonies of the same coral were added.

Just to be clear - I brought this up not as a statement of fact - but a theory to discuss.

I actually couldn't agree more with your entire statement. We often think of a fuge as an example of nutrient export, with nitrate/po4 being the main nutrient being exported, but they also export tons of other things, while it may be small compared to the amount of nitrate/phosphate exported, it is still happening. The same can be said for every microscopic living thing in established rock.
Also very good point in relation to adding dry rock, that would not increase biodiversity as there must be something to cause the increase (i do not consider diatoms biodiversity as they are generally short lived). With that being said, if you added additional live rock from the other side of the world, that would likely increase biodiversity initially.

 

[MnFish1]

I always attributed "maturity" to balance rather than diversity. Our tanks are constantly going through various cycles. The nitrogen cycle is just the one that gets the most attention. As a tank matures all of the chemical processes are going through warfare to try and balance everything out. These processes are what cause corals and anemone to be upset. Just my .02$ and maybe I'm wrong.

I think you're right.

 

[LiamPM]

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 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.

 

[LRT]

Plz provide a link on a scientific study that backs your claims

What are you looking for here? All you have to do is quick Google search on msds sheets for pvc, glue, etc. And how they absoloutely do leach certain things like tin and many other things. Especially things they are treated with.
Just look up tin and pvc real quick.
If you think these plastics aren't leaching into the water your out of your mind.
I develop land and infrastructure and put just about every piece of plastic pipe known to man in the ground. Half of that carries drinking and reclaimed water.
Our state just went to flex tubing in housing industry for this very reason.

Can you show me a scientific paper that proves otherwise?

 

[ZoWhat]

What are you looking for here? All you have to do is quick Google search on msds sheets for pvc, glue, etc. And how they absoloutely do leach certain things like tin and many other things. Especially things they are treated with.
Just look up tin and pvc real quick.
If you think these plastics aren't leaching into the water your out of your mind.
I develop land and infrastructure and put just about every piece of plastic pipe known to man in the ground. Half of that carries drinking and reclaimed water.
Our state just went to flex tubing in housing industry for this very reason.

Can you show me a scientific paper that proves otherwise?

You didn't pass the sniff test ;Pompus bc some tanks thrive while other die under the same general plumbing methods

 

[Dolphins18]

Look at NSF 61 minimums (most pvc) they contain trace amounts of many metals, quick google search shows this, also thru the process PVC is made it would be silly to think it didn't contain any.

 

[LRT]

You didn't pass the sniff test ;Pompus bc some tanks thrive while other die under the same general plumbing methods

Your not passing the sniff test and im calling you on it. I see you come into many threads here. Sometimes I agree but most of the time its obvious your just trolling. This time your just plain wrong.
Show me a scientific paper that says pvc and other plastics don't leach into our water as well as sewer systems
While your at it Google articulating all wheel drive (front wheel for you) Harley I helped my buddy build one of those. It was featured in most of the bike magazines
How many amens can I get for that?

 

[MnFish1]

LOL
That was a quote from the OP. Not me.
Argue with him. I told him it was silly and he got mad at me.

LOL - The OP was not 'mad' at you. The OP thought it was a little odd that you just said 'you're premise is silly'. When all I was trying to do was start a discussion.

 

[ZoWhat]

.......

 

[MnFish1]

I have used a lot of PVC glue over the years. My system right now has about 60 feet of PVC and glued joints.
A really big new skimmer. New Stock tanks. I generally put in service after 4 hours drying time.

No problems.

Shrug.

The key to what I was trying to discuss was not adding new equipment to an established tank (which I assume yours is). The key is whether when someone is using ALL new equipment and rock - if chemicals CAN leach into the water of a tank. And - that if that tank had lets say an anemone and 2 clownfish, could said chemicals be PART of the problem. There has to be a reason (reasons) why people make claims that 'you shouldn't add an anemone (etc) for a year'. My comment was merely could that be part of it.

Another poster said - probably not because not every new system has problems. Could the quality of plastic used, etc etc be part of it - I don't know. What I would bet (because its done in research) - is that you can take an anemone, put it into a cycled tank with adequate filtration merely a glass tank) and it will do fine - assuming stable water parameters. So - bacterial/other diversity also cannot be the only answer.

 

[LRT]

You just wanna "fight and be right"

I'm out

Lol I digress. You asked for paper wanting data to prove ops theory and belittled the idea in process.
All I was looking for was a paper proving the ops theory was wrong with a little "brain muscle flexing" back cause thats what I thought you where really after.

 

[MnFish1]

Plz provide a link on a scientific study that backs your claims

CORAL Excerpt: ReefKeeping 101 - All about plasticizers

Some materials suitable for freshwater aquariums are inappropriate for marine aquariums. One example is flexible PVC tubing.

www.reef2rainforest.com

There are numerous articles on Tin leaching fro PVC:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/...ge&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL

 

[ZoWhat]

The key to what I was trying to discuss was not adding new equipment to an established tank (which I assume yours is). The key is whether when someone is using ALL new equipment and rock - if chemicals CAN leach into the water of a tank. And - that if that tank had lets say an anemone and 2 clownfish, could said chemicals be PART of the problem. There has to be a reason (reasons) why people make claims that 'you shouldn't add an anemone (etc) for a year'. My comment was merely could that be part of it.

Another poster said - probably not because not every new system has problems. Could the quality of plastic used, etc etc be part of it - I don't know. What I would bet (because its done in research) - is that you can take an anemone, put it into a cycled tank with adequate filtration merely a glass tank) and it will do fine - assuming stable water parameters. So - bacterial/other diversity also cannot be the only answer.

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

 

[MnFish1]

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

If you don't feel comfortable commenting on them - stop commenting on them lol.

That was my point. The reason older tanks seem to do well cant be because of increasing biodiversityover time - because biodiversity decreases over time in general. You were the one that posted a picture (I believe) of a bare tank - and said 'do you think the biodiversity is high here' (paraphrased) followed by 'your premise is silly'.

This is a DISCUSSION BOARD. I posted a topic for DISCUSSION. The specific reason I did is that I just finished reading about someone who had just finished setting up a tank - and had high tin levels on ICP. So I brought up a QUESTION for DISCUSSION. Tin and other chemicals from new items can come from certain types of GLASS, PVC, etc. Organic chemicals can come from numerous sources - and I think you'd agree that not all companies use the same grade of plastic materials.