Finer points of the cycle...

[brandon429]

Fab I may have edited it out since that post I'll relink here. I'm a mad editor lol always carving up posts just to keep clarity or references updated. It does cause confusion at times

When I mentioned signature link earlier I was yapping about a link where we fix algae just by burning it out. That's here
http://reef2reef.com/threads/reef2reef-pest-algae-challenge-thread-hydrogen-peroxide.187042/

Alex's plan for cycling research is on point. I'm the guy in the back saying to burn out every algae we see only because I'm wanting to prevent his tank from becoming like some of those problem tanks above, to head things off at the pass that's all. There are so many ways of dealing with algae I don't think the hobby will settle for just one universal way. That above is just more options to the mix

Some algae in a reef tank isn't bad, or unnatural, it's just the fork in the road decision point as I see things. I choose to burn it lol others may choose a more measured response, seek a happy medium

 

[nervousmonkey]

There are some other threads on keeping the proper balance of nitrates in one's system for health of corals, but that's another topic altogether.

The balancing act between nutrient levels (NO3 and PO4 the measurable nutrients) and coral health is a new topic that is catching fire right now, and you are actually learning some cool stuff from Randy, Brandon and Nano Sapiens, but that would require an entirely new thread. There is no such thing as corals that "like" a dirty system, only corals that possess a greater fault tolerance for lack of cleanliness.

We'll I'll just counter that I'm not in agreement that it is a myth that some corals "prefer" dirtier water than others.

All corals will have an optimum range for nutrient levels. Some aspects of them may have different optimal ranges (such as color vs growth rate vs other attributes like skeletal density, etc.).

I see no reason to think the optimal ranges are all the same, and many organisms seem to thrive in higher nutrient levels as well or better than at low levels.

Soft corals are among these, but folks are also beginning to discover that even many hard corals do not "prefer" very low inorganic nutrients (at least when their natural solid food such as phytoplankton are more limited, as in reef tanks compared to the ocean). 5 ppm nitrate and 0.02 ppm phosphate would be considered dirty water for the ocean, and yet many folks find SPS thrive in that better than lower levels in their aquaria. Soft corals seem to do very well at even higher levels.

One of the big problems is that at these elevated nutrient levels (aside from the browner colors many corals take on due to elevated zoox levels), algae and other pest growth is also faster and may require other interventions such as herbivores.

I do not believe that we are in disagreement that some corals prefer dirtier water at all. All corals definitely have their own optimum ranges for nutrient levels, and by that, I mean inorganics that we have typically thought of as bad for our tanks, actually prove to be of great value to coral health. What I wanted to convey, but did not, was that what you stated above in regards to 'folks beginning to discover...' is actually some really cool new data, though it is what I consider half good data (due to actually measuring something with a value - NO3 at 5 ppm, etc.) and half anecdotal, as all we can do is report what we individually see happening in our tanks. Either way, it is new information that is, I think, really cool to learn, and especially for Alex to learn at this stage of his reefing "career". He's getting years and years of experienced reefer knowledge condensed into a few paragraphs, but he is learning a new paradigm in reef keeping, as the shift in thinking is occurring.

I wanted to express that trying to keep water as clean as possible is always going to be healthy for corals, as most reefers will have a difficult time reducing inorganics to near unmeasurable values. My nutrient reduction method of choice is biopellets and I find them quite useful, although I had to learn the hard way why some corals looked like they were suffering. The solution I chose to use after reading a lot here about it was to start adding nitrates back in to my system. As soon as I started dosing nitrates in one tank, the SPS in that tank colored up within days and don't have "burnt tips" (if that term is even accurate). I've certainly made a lot of mistakes, and have definitely killed corals with stupid experiments I thought I would try out, but learning from other people has taught me not to take chemistry in my tank lightly, hence my statement that corals do not "prefer" dirty water, as that is unnatural in the real world.

And I do have to put up with a lot more algae growth than I would like to, but the reaction of healthier corals is all I need for evidence... Thanks for clarifying the point Randy. It certainly made me think about how to better phrase what I say.

 

[alexkharden]

I'm glad I sparked this conversation/debate, I'm learning a lot!

Wanted to give you guys an update, as things have not quite gone as planned.

I took my trip to Florida and picked up 306 pounds of live rock and 20 pounds of live sand. That was according to plan, but I also got three gorgonians, three tree sponges, one Orange brain looking sponge, one yellow ball sponge, two blennys, two small halimeda plants, one royal gramma, and one as yet unidentified fish that appears to be some kind of sucker fish.

There's also a crap ton of crabs, about ten black urchins, one pencil urchin, snails, hermits, two decorator crabs, a million barnacles and feather dusters, and one flame scallop.

So that's a lot more life than I intended to start with. Needless to say I am much more paranoid about ammonia than I would have been with just some live rock.

I moved a 55 gallon tank into the room and filled it with rodi and mixed it up as saltwater. I've got a dual head stenner pump and I'm basically just doing a slow but continuous water change. I'm mixing 5 gallon buckets of saltwater and adding it to the 55 gallon tank as needed. I was hoping I wouldn't even have to do a water change with all that live rock, but when I hit 1ppm for ammonia I didn't want to wait any longer. I guess I'll just keep doing this continuous water change until the cycle completes. That'll be a crap ton of salt. But it's worth it to try to keep everything healthy. As it is, one gorgonian has all of the polyps sucked in and the flame scallop is acting lethargic.

I hope they make it!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

FWIW, I started my tank more than 20 years ago with wild Florida live rock (which was available at the time). I really liked the rock boring urchins and brittle stars that came with it and lasted a long time. I even got a beautiful orange Epicystis crucifer anemone.

OTOH, the mussels and sponges did not last that long.

 

[alexkharden]

All of the reading I've indicates that you're going to end up being correct in that the mussels will not last long. (I assume you were referring to the barnacles?). I also figured the rock sponges wouldn't last either, as the reading I've done also indicated that.

What about the tree, ball, and brain sponges though, were you being all-sponge inclusive? Is there a chance they'll survive?

 

[alexkharden]

I do not believe that we are in disagreement that some corals prefer dirtier water at all. All corals definitely have their own optimum ranges for nutrient levels, and by that, I mean inorganics that we have typically thought of as bad for our tanks, actually prove to be of great value to coral health. What I wanted to convey, but did not, was that what you stated above in regards to 'folks beginning to discover...' is actually some really cool new data, though it is what I consider half good data (due to actually measuring something with a value - NO3 at 5 ppm, etc.) and half anecdotal, as all we can do is report what we individually see happening in our tanks. Either way, it is new information that is, I think, really cool to learn, and especially for Alex to learn at this stage of his reefing "career". He's getting years and years of experienced reefer knowledge condensed into a few paragraphs, but he is learning a new paradigm in reef keeping, as the shift in thinking is occurring.

I wanted to express that trying to keep water as clean as possible is always going to be healthy for corals, as most reefers will have a difficult time reducing inorganics to near unmeasurable values. My nutrient reduction method of choice is biopellets and I find them quite useful, although I had to learn the hard way why some corals looked like they were suffering. The solution I chose to use after reading a lot here about it was to start adding nitrates back in to my system. As soon as I started dosing nitrates in one tank, the SPS in that tank colored up within days and don't have "burnt tips" (if that term is even accurate). I've certainly made a lot of mistakes, and have definitely killed corals with stupid experiments I thought I would try out, but learning from other people has taught me not to take chemistry in my tank lightly, hence my statement that corals do not "prefer" dirty water, as that is unnatural in the real world.

And I do have to put up with a lot more algae growth than I would like to, but the reaction of healthier corals is all I need for evidence... Thanks for clarifying the point Randy. It certainly made me think about how to better phrase what I say.

How did you dose nitrates? Forgive my ignorance, but that feels like....I don't know....redundant? If your nutrient export is so efficient that your corals were suffering, wouldn't it make sense to make your export systems a little less...efficient? Also, again considering the export efficiency, wouldn't you be exporting the nitrates you're dosing almost as soon as you dose them?

Speaking of out-of-the-ordinary dosing, I've been reading more recently about people actually dosing silica. Is this becoming a thing? What benefits are there?

 

[alexkharden]

Also, to all reading this thread.

Like I said, I was not prepared to have fish/corals/sponges etc.... yet. My brain was limited in terms of hitchhikers to shrimp and crabs and the like. Obviously, my limited thinking has put me in the lurch. The best laid plans and all that.... Anyway, now I've ended up having to do a fish-in cycle, which makes me a little sad - only because I know the fish are sad having to live in semi-poisonous water.

My question concerns feeding. I don't even know what these things eat, or if I should even feed them yet. My original plan included a carefully mapped out fish roster checked for compatibility and each fish researched and added in slowly over time, after quarantining. I will still do that in the future, but now I've got these little orphans to think about. I'm concerned with the ammonia levels skyrocketing if I start adding food into the system. Currently I've been holding the line at ~1.3ppm with the continuous water change, and all of the fish appear to be healthy. The two blennies are active and exploring the rocks they've claimed, and the gramma has staked herself out a little cave where she can watch me (when she doesn't think I'm looking). She doesn't let me see her much, but when I can she doesn't appear to be breathing rapidly and her motions appear smooth. The sucker fish is pretty well hidden, but appears to be...well, sucking just fine, lol.

So what does the survey panel of experts think? Learn what they eat and start feeding? Or hold off for a day or two? The bright side is, they all came straight from a reef and none of them came from a LFS, so I know they haven't been starved while being transported all over the place.

And, seriously, thank you all for all your help. I appreciate it, and I know my new little orphans will as well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

All of the reading I've indicates that you're going to end up being correct in that the mussels will not last long. (I assume you were referring to the barnacles?). I also figured the rock sponges wouldn't last either, as the reading I've done also indicated that.

What about the tree, ball, and brain sponges though, were you being all-sponge inclusive? Is there a chance they'll survive?

None of the large sponges that came with the rock survived, and in general, they are very hard to keep even when sold for that purpose. The only ones I got on the rock were orange encrusting types.

I did not mean barnacles (I don't think my rock had any), but mussels:

These are barnacles:

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Also, to all reading this thread.

Like I said, I was not prepared to have fish/corals/sponges etc.... yet. My brain was limited in terms of hitchhikers to shrimp and crabs and the like. Obviously, my limited thinking has put me in the lurch. The best laid plans and all that.... Anyway, now I've ended up having to do a fish-in cycle, which makes me a little sad - only because I know the fish are sad having to live in semi-poisonous water.

My question concerns feeding. I don't even know what these things eat, or if I should even feed them yet. My original plan included a carefully mapped out fish roster checked for compatibility and each fish researched and added in slowly over time, after quarantining. I will still do that in the future, but now I've got these little orphans to think about. I'm concerned with the ammonia levels skyrocketing if I start adding food into the system. Currently I've been holding the line at ~1.3ppm with the continuous water change, and all of the fish appear to be healthy. The two blennies are active and exploring the rocks they've claimed, and the gramma has staked herself out a little cave where she can watch me (when she doesn't think I'm looking). She doesn't let me see her much, but when I can she doesn't appear to be breathing rapidly and her motions appear smooth. The sucker fish is pretty well hidden, but appears to be...well, sucking just fine, lol.

So what does the survey panel of experts think? Learn what they eat and start feeding? Or hold off for a day or two? The bright side is, they all came straight from a reef and none of them came from a LFS, so I know they haven't been starved while being transported all over the place.

And, seriously, thank you all for all your help. I appreciate it, and I know my new little orphans will as well.

I would not feed anything for a while. There will be plenty of food for scavengers in the curing/dead stuff on the live rock.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Why are there fish in the tank?

 

[alexkharden]

The fish came as hitchhikers, they weren't bought. I have barnacles, not clams. From what I've read the barnacles will all die as there isn't enough in an aquarium water column to sustain them.

The rock was transported in water, and was only in transport (from Gulf of Mexico to tank) for about 48 hours. On the rock there are orange, blue, white, brown, black, and clear sponges. Probably others I haven't seen. I also see what could possibly be (have been) some encrusting type of coral on the rock, like zoa's or something. I say "have been" because they've been clamped tight since I bought the rock so I don't know whether or not they're alive.

Also, I'm pretty sure no curing will be required for this rock. That usually applies to live rock with a large die off because of newspaper shipping, but I've been given to believe that's not the case with rock kept in water the whole time - as this was. Does that change you position on feeding, or should I still hold off for the time being?

 

[alexkharden]

I only bought the rock and sand, and some CUC. All other life that's been mentioned came in the form of hitchhikers. Some of it was bagged up by the guy who sold me the rock, but it was just extras that I assumed he discovered while bagging and boxing the rock.

 

[nervousmonkey]

Your rock will cure itself for your specific tank, so as things die off, they release ammonia until you have some equilibrium of life. I can't speak to rock that's live like that, except over 20 years ago I set up a 55 with live rock from the wild. It was cool seeing anything on it.
Speaking to your other question regarding nitrate dosing, there are a lot of ways to do it, potassium nitrate being one way. If you want to learn more, @twilliard has posted extensively about it. Todd has some great knowledge regarding it. In terms of nitrate reduction, what we were speaking of earlier in relation to nitrate dosing being quite new, that's what I mean. Nitrates were the enemy for so long that the industry developed amazing ways to obliterate them and it wasn't until then that we realized we needed some. There are also studies that were done on the Great Barrier Reef with PO4 dosing that show corals take up PO4 at unusually high doses. So answer to your question is that we are just breaking the ice on this new knowledge. In a decade you'll look back and laugh that you came in at the end of the guys who stripped their water so clean they dosed stump remover in their tanks.
Hope that makes sense...

 

[alexkharden]

It makes perfect sense, thank you

So as/if it turns out that higher nitrate levels make for happier corals, how them to control the algae that will also be very happy? I imagine we'll have to start tracking the nitrate uptake of the corals everyday to dose the proper amount, similar to current calcium/magnesium/alk dosing.

I wonder if all nitrate is created equal?

 

[twilliard]

No3 in my observations did not make algae grow out of control. If you limit Po4 the algae for instance in a refugium just stays green and healthy looking. Now if you increase Po4 I have noticed algae will grow quite substantial.
There are many forms of no3 that can be used. I chose potassium nitrate as the small amount of potassium is beneficial to my tank.
Through months of triton testing my potassium levels have not increased by any large percentage.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It makes perfect sense, thank you

So as/if it turns out that higher nitrate levels make for happier corals, how them to control the algae that will also be very happy? I imagine we'll have to start tracking the nitrate uptake of the corals everyday to dose the proper amount, similar to current calcium/magnesium/alk dosing.

I wonder if all nitrate is created equal?

FWIW, high nitrate does not necessarily make any organisms happier than "just enough" so that it is not limiting to their growth.

Not sure what you mean by all nitrate "created' equal, but a basic tenant of chemistry is that all existing nitrate ions are EXACTLY equal in how they respond in a given situation, unless you are concerned with different nuclear isotopes (which is not important in reef tanks).