**GURUs** EXPERTs** lets stop killing fish!

[rojonez]

Sorry for the rant from a R2R-newbee. However... I did saltwater 20 years ago... and I know that losing a new-fish within 3-days sucks, and is not normal. Without my prior experience... I would have given up by now. Bottom-line... Ammonia kills fish.

I did saltwater 20 yrs ago (before powerheads & skimmers... UV was infant, bass/balsa-wood-air-stones were used when skimmers came-about). I Never had the problems of today (live rock, refugium, thin sand in the display, etc.)

Twenty years ago I did saltwater fish (only). Parasites seemed to be controlled by 1.018 and out-breaks controlled by freshwater dips... rairly followed by copper (one time in ten years). Fast-forward twenty years later, my kids are now grown... I started a 150 gallon. I cannot describe the frustration of loosing Queens, Annularis', and many others within a few days of introduction... and I am not alone. Forget the cost. Losing a beautiful fish sucks. This community MUST establish a short-list for protecting life. My conclusion... is... Ammonia.

I cannot even find an under-gravel filter for purchase. While it is true that 20yrs ago I had to break-down my system and remove debis under the plastic-UG substrate... I never lost a fish within 3-days of purchase (except when I "hard-way-learned" - groupers eat fish ~80% of their own size). Now-days my family cringes when I buy a nice fish cause they know it will be dead within a short time. Even-though I have fish are more than 3yrs old... my new fish DON'T fair well... kept in the same tank as my existing fish! Why do new fish die? Many others have the same issue. My conclusion... Ammonia. Gurus may laugh at my mistakes & failures.

As an engineer... canister filters and under-gravel filters provide a POSITIVE forced flow... meaning... any water sucked in WILL pass-through biological-media. The NEW "organic" method of thin-sand & live rock relies on "magic" for biological-flow. From my "hang-gliding" experience I have learned that fluids of different-densities DO-NOT mix... Similarly, Bio-chemistry within live-rock... may contain & build, but has no incentive to mix other than venturi flow... until internal densities and/or thermal-deviations provide physical-potential to eventually release&mix with the greater aquatic environment. This is NOT a "positive" flow, and may create "deadly pockets" within an aquarium.

New fish hide... and all fish excrete waste... A new fish hiding in it' s "secure" spot... most-likely creates an ammonia-pocket within it's hiding spot. And... lack of "positive flow" may exasperate this issue. Do other territorial fish excrete waste in this same spot? Who knows... Bottom line... New fish that die within 3-days are LIKELY to be victims of ammonia. Water-flow by fluid-dynamic-principals... has NO reason to penetrate "clusters" of live rock... this is NOT positive controlled-fluid-flow, more-over... it is wish-full thinking. Fluid flow avoids obstacles.

So... when does live-rock "excrete" biological-by-product? Yes... biology is active... but... when does the internal-fluid "flow-out?" Fluids of differing-densities do-NOT-naturally-mix (hang-gliding-thermals)... So... does live-rock release "by-product" when density and/or temperature resulting from the "biological process" demands a release? Who cares? POSITIVE FLOW PROVIDES BETTER FILTRATION. Natural is great... but I don't have time to figure out tidal flows dictated by phases of the moon, nor the desire to recreate them in my 150 gallon tank.

My guess is debate will continue indefinitely. But... many "enthusiasts" are flushing/burying fish... and subsequently "exiting" the hobby. Twenty-years ago it was NOT this hard... and today... I know 10x the chemistry & biology compared to what I knew when I started this hobby 20yrs ago. People may argue about disease or supplier-intermediate-incubation today... However twenty years ago people were arguing about using dynamite to "stun" and collect the fish that eventually "recovered" from the blast.

The bottom line is this:

a. positive flow of water through biologically-active-maximum-surface-area-media coverts ammonia/nitrite/nitrate... oxygen vs deprived is for advanced.
b. Under-gravel provides positive flow & huge-media-surface-area.
c. Layered substrate coarse/medium/fine separated by-screens provides minimal penetration of macro-waste and excellent fluid-flow characteristics.
d. CFD/Fluid dynamics predicts zero-incentive for flow to penetrate live-rock clusters.
e. Death is the number-1 reason for "enthusiastic" hobby-ists to "give up."
f. Success by newbies is the best way to propagate the hobby.

Again, sorry to interrupt anyone's agenda... but the "organic-natural" filtration method may not be working for the average hobbyist. Death sucks. And... robust methods for biological filtration are a definite positive that can eliminate potential for local ammonia/nitrite zones... an EXCELLENT starting point for an enthusiastic beginner.

Searching the web provides seven answers for one newbie question.

A clear & concise simple manual for newbies & intermediate hobbyists which provides a high success rate is a great way to energize new members. From my experience... live-rock & thin-sand-display-tank... ain't it.

Refugium... yes... DSB... Yes... Calupera... yes... skimmer-pinwheel...yes...UV...yes... bio-balls...yes... cleaner-shrimp... yes... 100-micron bags...yes...Phosguard...yes...RO...yes... blah...blah...blah... sporatic success-today... twenty years ago...simple... none of this...but with much-higher-success... priceless.

 

[TheGrimmReefer]

I have to say, I believe your thinking is a bit dated.

Nobody uses under gravel filters anymore, other than the guys that have been running them since the 90s. There are proven methods of acclimating and quarantining new fish to decrease the chances of losing a fish within a few days. Maybe its something you're doing wrong.

Most new hobbyists rush into things, and go by the information they receive from their LFS, which isn't always the best. Forums like R2R and local clubs provide good insight from experienced hobbyists that new hobbyists should use as a research tool. Posts on QT and acclimation, by members like @Humblefish (Dr. Fish) give new hobbyists (and experienced hobbyists) a platform on how to do things correctly, which should decrease the chances of losing new livestock.

I understand where you're coming from, but, IMO, it's a bit off base. No disrespect meant.

 

[joshkirkland83]

I have to say, I believe your thinking is a bit dated.

Nobody uses under gravel filters anymore, other than the guys that have been running them since the 90s. There are proven methods of acclimating and quarantining new fish to decrease the chances of losing a fish within a few days. Maybe its something you're doing wrong.

Most new hobbyists rush into things, and go by the information they receive from their LFS, which isn't always the best. Forums like R2R and local clubs provide good insight from experienced hobbyists that new hobbyists should use as a research tool. Posts on QT and acclimation, by members like @Humblefish (Dr. Fish) give new hobbyists (and experienced hobbyists) a platform on how to do things correctly, which should decrease the chances of losing new livestock.

I understand where you're coming from, but, IMO, it's a bit off base. No disrespect meant.

+1

 

[NeuroticAquatics]

I have been doing this saltwater thing for 30+ years and have seen all of the changes. I have not seen a big difference in my fatality rates from then to now. I do tend to keep things simple in my setups though and believe that some hobbyists over complicate things nowadays.

Freshwater dips will not "cure" Ich. At best, they provide temporary relief. I stand by all the science/research that has occurred over the years to improve our understanding of this (and other) diseases.

I think that the "new way" suggests much more flow, so I think that your ammonia pockets theory is off. With enough flow, a tank should not have water or waste stagnating.

There are other points that I disagree with, but overall it boils down to what you want to do with your tank. If you want to use canister filters and under gravel filters and feel that is what is keeping new additions alive, go for it.

As the others said, no disrespect meant with my differing opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

FWIW, I don't find these arguments to be convincing that adding an undergravel filter or canister filter will significantly reduce fish loses in the first few days of residence in a reef tank.

I had a longer post detailing my issues with the chemistry that I think is not correct (the density issues, for example), but it just didn't seem worth getting into a detailed debate on it since the overall premise seems to have flaws.

So I'll focus just on that:

How would the hypothesized level of ammonia in a local very low flow pocket in the rock be changed at all by the nature of filtration including a canister filter elsewhere in the system or not? A canister filter doesn't change the flow through a local pocket.

I recently saw some data for a 0.2 ppm spike of ammonia added to a typical reef tank, and it depleted rapidly with a drop by 0.1 ppm in less than 2 hours.

 

[Mark Shelly]

I cannot even find an under-gravel filter for purchase. While it is true that 20yrs ago I had to break-down my system and remove debis under the plastic-UG substrate... I never lost a fish within 3-days of purchase (except when I "hard-way-learned" -

I am not the best person to answer this, but a reef tank is trying to do something different from a regular fish tank. Specifically, reefs aren't typically exposed to high concentrations of fertilizer, so these tanks are looking for methods to keep them out and guidance for a reef tank might not be best for a fish only tank. Under gravel filters wouldn't help keep these fertilizers down (p.s. I saw some under ground filters at Petco and they might be acceptable for fish only). I would not want to break down a coral reef tank to clean under an under gravel filter.
There is no reason you can't add redundant filtration equipment (I did) or aim powerheads to force water between live rocks. Everything I have read suggest water flow is important. The add to the water flow and provide redundancy. But I do see your point in that live rock does not lend itself to rapid fish introduction.
Maybe the fish need to get over the capture and shipping stress as well as getting used to new food and different water conditions. It may not have eaten in a while either. If you are not killing existing fish, it probably isn't the new tank by itself. See the post by humblefish from January 27 on quarantining. I thought it did a good job of showing why you might lose new fish. And even if you are right that a scared fish is exposed to higher ammonia by hiding, it probably also isn't eating, is scared of other fish and people, and is stressed by other water conditions (reef tanks may have higher salt concentrations that are not ideal for fish disease) so eliminating the reason to hide would help.
Lastly, I think there is a reason people list fish as for beginners and recommend captive bread fish. Or why they recommend watching a fish eat at the fish store before buying them and quarantining them when they get home. But my research before starting my tank shows that not everyone has the same opinion on what works, what works for fish only might not work in a reef, and that most people will be too anxious to get the tank filled (I am) to acclimate the fish right. Things like water changes, checking ammonia levels, and adding bacteria cultures might help reduce localized ammonia levels.

 

[cb684]

In my opinion there are two major flaws in this argument:
1) Most of the fish that were newly introduced in quarantine systems die of NH3 toxicity.
2) There is a major density difference between saltwater and NH3-rich fish waste.
Not to say that a checklist for newbies is not a good thing. But I believe there are many good resources and examples from experienced hobbyists available for anyone that is willing to research before buying fish.

 

[Humblefish]

I cannot even find an under-gravel filter for purchase.

@Paul B to the rescue!

I also think the OP will find this thread interesting: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/diatom-filter-for-treating-external-parasites.212429/

 

[AlexG]

I think that other factors need to be looked if you are losing fish after 3 days. How old is your tank? What are the latest test results of the water? Where are the fish coming from? How are they being acclimated? What is the salinity of the water/temperature? Did you use RO water for your aquarium and was it tested with a TDS meter? I will say that under gravel filters can still be used but they are not very common. Canister filters become nitrate factories and tend to cause more harm than good imo. I think it is important to understand why the fish are dying and it can be difficult to determine this if there is a lack of information about the situation. I believe that this community does stand for the responsible keeping of marine animals and we do try to assist anyone that runs into difficulties. Unfortunatly there is no manual or book that describes every method to keeping marine aquariums as there are literally thousands of successful ways to do it. I believe this is why the R2R community is valuable because there is a great amount of knowledge available with the members who share ideas, opinions, and experiences.

 

[brandon429]

I love procedural debates I just love them. must pose the same question to all claimants:

show me the tank that ran this method. show me age, coral mass. include any details where unexpected losses or challenges occurred, part of true long term reefing is being able to weather storms, a small poweroutage, a death of a fish, without a cascading tank loss.

Snippets of what was claimed in the sandbed portion I thought were interesting and worth exploring, but lets see what became of all this. without pics, or a thread, all was just type. I can tell some experience is there but without pics of old coral growth I gotta not buy any of it. there is no formal reference, study, or claim that will surpass the details we could garner from a history of tank shots over X amnt of years running a supposed best method. 1st and only post from that claim makes me wonder if we'll get discussion sure hope that wasn't one off. its like you put some meat in the shark tank then took it our right when the smell hit

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Dang. I used up my controversial reply card already.
Happy Reefing.

 

[brandon429]

Whoever posted that mcgruber meme of shots fired the other day I wish I had the technological ability to steal and repost that in many places

 

[robert]

I used undergravel filters for decades. They can be excellent filters. Their biggest weakeness is the accumulation of deutritus under the filter which can be simply addressed with the addition of a bottom drain below the plate. They can provide and immense surface area for nitrification and help keep unheathy anerobic zones to a minimum.

Fish only tanks up to ~55 gallons without a bottom drain, I wouldn't hesitate to use one. With a bottom drain - much larger.

Reverse flow under gravel, where water is actively pushed below the plate and allowed to perculate up through the sandbed is another excellent method, with or without a bottom drain. You can run this configration for years before enough mineralized sludge builds up below the bottom plate to present a problem. Again a bottom drain can extend the life of this system - before tear-down becomes necessary.

I've run tanks in this configuration as large as 120 gallons for about five years without issue. It too, provides and immense surface area for nitrification and help keep unheathy anerobic zones to a minimum.

I think one aspect of many "modern" systems is that they lack deep recirculation...most rely on surface water return and many have little in the way of providing filtration for the deeper strata of the tank. Cannister filters for example provided filtration for the bottom of the tank as they usually pulled water from the bottom layers of the system. This is missing or minimalized in many systems with just an overflow and skimmer.

How might this be relevant? One possibilty is demonstrated by a Japanese study which looked into where ich could be found in a fish tank. What they found, was that the theronts of ich being heavier than water - and largely immobile (very weak swimming ability) were heavily concentrated in a 5 cm layer at the bottom of the tank. As you moved up in the water column the concentration of ich falls off dramatically. Now it might be reasonable to imagine that a filter draw from the bottom of the tank might be beneficial for controlling such a parasite. The authors of the study seemed to think so.

Now if you imagine a tank with a thin substrate layer - any sort of bottom flow would tend to pile this substrate into hills. Of course, this would not be the desired aesthetic effect, so the hobbiest would attempt to limit bottom flow to prevent it - and in doing so predispose their tank to parasitic infestation. An undefrgravel filter might tend to pull these below the plate where they could not infect the inhabitants of the tank.

As for ammonia and the chemistry of micro-zones in the system. They likely are more common than we realize. I'm not supporting the notion that they are sufficient to casue fish mortalities - just that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they exist in tanks without sufficient flow and top to bottom water circulation. Even on a natural reef with substantial flow pH has been found to measurably vary in pockets surrounding concentrations of corals.

In short - IMO - the types of filtration utilized, and how their flow is dristributed in the tank can have a tremendous impact on the health of the inhabitants of the system.

FWIW - here is my last UGF system - run in reverse - yes they do work. Do they improve the survivability of your fish? I think they have their advantages - but that these can be matched in a more "modern" system with proper attention to flow.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I used undergravel filters for decades. They can be excellent filters. Their biggest weakeness is the accumulation of deutritus under the filter which can be simply addressed with the addition of a bottom drain below the plate. They can provide and immense surface area for nitrification and help keep unheathy anerobic zones to a minimum.

Fish only tanks up to ~55 gallons without a bottom drain, I wouldn't hesitate to use one. With a bottom drain - much larger.

Reverse flow under gravel, where water is actively pushed below the plate and allowed to perculate up through the sandbed is another excellent method, with or without a bottom drain. You can run this configration for years before enough mineralized sludge builds up below the bottom plate to present a problem. Again a bottom drain can extend the life of this system - before tear-down becomes necessary.

I've run tanks in this configuration as large as 120 gallons for about five years without issue. It too, provides and immense surface area for nitrification and help keep unheathy anerobic zones to a minimum.

I think one aspect of many "modern" systems is that they lack deep recirculation...most rely on surface water return and many have little in the way of providing filtration for the deeper strata of the tank. Cannister filters for example provided filtration for the bottom of the tank as they usually pulled water from the bottom layers of the system. This is missing or minimalized in many systems with just an overflow and skimmer.

How might this be relevant? One possibilty is demonstrated by a Japanese study which looked into where ich could be found in a fish tank. What they found, was that the theronts of ich being heavier than water - and largely immobile (very weak swimming ability) were heavily concentrated in a 5 cm layer at the bottom of the tank. As you moved up in the water column the concentration of ich falls off dramatically. Now it might be reasonable to imagine that a filter draw from the bottom of the tank might be beneficial for controlling such a parasite. The authors of the study seemed to think so.

Now if you imagine a tank with a thin substrate layer - any sort of bottom flow would tend to pile this substrate into hills. Of course, this would not be the desired aesthetic effect, so the hobbiest would attempt to limit bottom flow to prevent it - and in doing so predispose their tank to parasitic infestation. An undefrgravel filter might tend to pull these below the plate where they could not infect the inhabitants of the tank.

As for ammonia and the chemistry of micro-zones in the system. They likely are more common than we realize. I'm not supporting the notion that they are sufficient to casue fish mortalities - just that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they exist in tanks without sufficient flow and top to bottom water circulation. Even on a natural reef with substantial flow pH has been found to measurably vary in pockets surrounding concentrations of corals.

In short - IMO - the types of filtration utilized, and how their flow is dristributed in the tank can have a tremendous impact on the health of the inhabitants of the system.

FWIW - here is my last UGF system - run in reverse - yes they do work. Do they improve the survivability of your fish? I think they have their advantages - but that these can be matched in a more "modern" system with proper attention to flow.

Thank you Sir.

 

[brandon429]

agreed, Pauls is like that too and these long term tanks have similar detritus dealings well done sharp pics

 

[Humblefish]

I used to run a UG filter, had decorative dead coral skeletons, etc. back in the day. Worked great for fish, and I was only a "coral change" away from having a nice clean, algae free tank again. Could never keep the nitrates down though due to the detritus under the filter. Never even thought about drilling a bottom drain under the filter to remove that crap.

 

[brandon429]

Rojonez as the emcee of the thread you can't leave the debates and agreements up to us fogees whats up w ya

good pro and con is here, are ya lurking!

 

[beaslbob]

IMHO the op is incorrect biologically and historically because:

1) we did lose fish with ugf's
2) ammonia is consumed directly by macro and other algae
3) macros were available
4) a growth of algae was considered the sign of a healthy tank.

at least since 1979 when I started.

my .02

 

[Ppoeschl]

A simple examination of the freshly dead fishes gills would prove or disprove this micro-ammonia theory.

 

[brandon429]

When a tank of any age shows the ability to repeatedly oxidize a few ppm ammonia to zero, fish aren't dying of ammonia within three days that's a huge jump posted. Why are there no actual ammonia readings posted for the assessment which counter act a prior fully cycled ammonia oxidation test? This is how an engineer makes sure the tank is ready for bioloading in the first place. They don't just guess install some queen angels to begin a guess.

The sandbed divisions seemed like a decent idea to test long term dealings/storage but there is no tie between that and loss of fish early.

How we stratify a sandbed doesn't matter In that scenario. They'd be gasping for air at the top of the tank not dying from ammonia in high flow in an ammonia zone that somehow pocketed and broke the 24 hr digestion demo. he's not going to post back

Troll run potential. I had hope for the interaction but three days coming on...

the inability to keep reef fish may stem from completely false attribution habits. With all the technicality posted and not backed, I bet this didn't even occur at all it was a theory run based on some slight from another thread or another board.