POLL: when do you consider a tank mature?

[SethOF]

Maturity is when you get tired of the tank.

 

[SethOF]

A tank is mature when you think you need another tank.

 

[potatocouch]

Let me ask you this question, can you be considered mature as a person? My point is maturity is subjective; your friend can say you're mature, perhaps it's different case with your parents.

 

[Ashish Patel]

I am doing SPS tank and losing patient with trying to mature this tank. When you start with Dry rock it will take years and years before reaching maturity in terms of beneficial critters that feed corals and fish. So about 2 month into the setup I added 10LB of cured rock (see purple rock) thats over 15 years old from a fellow reefers. I was reluctant because having battled vermit snails and aiptasia in past I wanted to avoid these. However, realize now that things such as worms and critters will surely find its way into the tank one way or another. Therefore, i am going back today to pickup more LR form this guy who has a hugh piece covered in sponge.

My tanks almost 3 months and still looks like nothing is growing but at least I have not run into any algae issues.

 

[Ashish Patel]

A tank is mature when you have "White crusty crap" growing in your return pump....

 

[brett_schn]

I am doing SPS tank and losing patient with trying to mature this tank. When you start with Dry rock it will take years and years before reaching maturity in terms of beneficial critters that feed corals and fish. So about 2 month into the setup I added 10LB of cured rock (see purple rock) thats over 15 years old from a fellow reefers. I was reluctant because having battled vermit snails and aiptasia in past I wanted to avoid these. However, realize now that things such as worms and critters will surely find its way into the tank one way or another. Therefore, i am going back today to pickup more LR form this guy who has a hugh piece covered in sponge.

My tanks almost 3 months and still looks like nothing is growing but at least I have not run into any algae issues.

That’s a beautiful tank. What tank is IT?

 

[Ashish Patel]

That’s a beautiful tank. What tank is IT?[/QUOTE]


Appreciate it. I got the tank build by CTC (Tank 115G) and I build and skinned the stand. I have 8 Islands so when I move I can easily pull out the rocks and coral without causing too much stress.

 

[brett_schn]

Wow I got to check that brand

 

[roberthu526]

I'd say when you don't consider adding new fish or coral and finally figured out a routine to keep your water parameter stable for over a month.
My experience is no matter how stable the tank is once you add a livestock something changes and it takes time to find that balance again.

 

[alton]

I said 1 year because of my transfer of liverock and fish from a 10 year old 200g to a 300 which the Nitrates stayed at 5ppm, but with the new tank and sand it jumped to 20ppm. Then after a year the nitrates came back down and were easy to control. When I down sized from the 300 to my current 180 the same thing happened.

 

[Ashish Patel]

I added SPS after 2 months and kind of wish I had the patients to add them after the 6 mark (which is now). I actually added Soft corals and LPS after SPS - was not planning on adding any so figured I just start of with some stylos and montis. if your going with 100% dry rock its too sterile for SPS. Even if you are feeding heavy you'll still suffer from low nutrients and lack of microfauna. I lost a about 4 SPS from bringing nitrates from 0-3PPM in few days as well as introducing an algae problem that never existed. I added about 30LB of premium cured liverock after adding SPS and seem to establish well enough to keep SPS growing after 2 months. I would recommend going 100% dry rock for a bigger who is only planning on adding softies and LPS corals. If your going with SPS you need patients or some LR from a fellow hobbyist tanks

 

[MnFish1]

It actually is.

Very often it it is, And fwiw most folks who say say "sps" mean acropora. Not stylophora witch can be a much hardier species.

Ill agree there are tricks to a "forced maturity". But the difference between that tank at one year and 5 years is still quite different.

I disagree with the idea that a tank has to be 'mature' to be successful. I also don't think there is any science behind the idea that a tank has to be 'x months old' in order to keep 'x coral or fish'. I would guess its the increased experience/maturity of the reef keeper over time that makes it seem the the longer time goes on the more successful the tank is - Making it appear that something is changing over time in the tank to make it safer.

I also disagree with the idea that 'forced maturity' - using bacteria to cycle a tank is less safe or 'worse' than waiting weeks for a tank to cycle. I think testing this would be a good BRS test video

 

[DSC reef]

I disagree with the idea that a tank has to be 'mature' to be successful. I also don't think there is any science behind the idea that a tank has to be 'x months old' in order to keep 'x coral or fish'. I would guess its the increased experience/maturity of the reef keeper over time that makes it seem the the longer time goes on the more successful the tank is - Making it appear that something is changing over time in the tank to make it safer.

I also disagree with the idea that 'forced maturity' - using bacteria to cycle a tank is less safe or 'worse' than waiting weeks for a tank to cycle. I think testing this would be a good BRS test video

I respectfully disagree. Letting your tank mature means letting your tanks ecosystem develop like it should and will promote more success in the long run. This is especially true for inexperienced reefers. To many instances of forced cycling promising you that adding fish and coral immediately is setting up people for failure and battles of cyano, algae, ect. Ofcourse it can be done and it has but I think patience should be practiced and preached for better long term success.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

I disagree with the idea that a tank has to be 'mature' to be successful. I also don't think there is any science behind the idea that a tank has to be 'x months old' in order to keep 'x coral or fish'. I would guess its the increased experience/maturity of the reef keeper over time that makes it seem the the longer time goes on the more successful the tank is - Making it appear that something is changing over time in the tank to make it safer.

I also disagree with the idea that 'forced maturity' - using bacteria to cycle a tank is less safe or 'worse' than waiting weeks for a tank to cycle. I think testing this would be a good BRS test video

That's cool. Many would agree however an anamonae and an acropora and a giant clam doesn't do well in a one month old tank.

Tak a look a triton and the Red Sea program. It's quite an interetung piece of science and a very interesting method. There did es seem to be some success with the above mentioned species following the methods.

And yea. A one month old tank started with dry rock can be very successful. I personally wouldn't put a Walt Disney acro or a maxima or a mandarin in it.

 

[MnFish1]

I respectfully disagree. Letting your tank mature means letting your tanks ecosystem develop like it should and will promote more success in the long run. This is especially true for inexperienced reefers. To many instances of forced cycling promising you that adding fish and coral immediately is setting up people for failure and battles of cyano, algae, ect. Ofcourse it can be done and it has but I think patience should be practiced and preached for better long term success.

And yet - is it the process (forced cycling) itself or is it the way that inexperienced people perform their forced cycling that leads to problems? If a person has added the correct amount of cycling bacteria and livestock, and the ammonia/ nitrite doesn't 'spike' and the chemistry in the tank is correct, what (scientifically) would cause a higher likelihood of cyano, etc? Part of the problem with 'new tanks' is the each piece of livestock adds to the need for more bacteria for the nitrogen cycle. This happens whether the livestock is added once a month or once a day. If a person adds the requisite cycling bacteria with new livestock to me there should be little or no difference between the 2 methods. (I know this is heretical thinking)

I agree with you that the inexperience you mention is the main problem. Like I mentioned originally, People with a 5 year old tank have a lot more 'experience' , they have learned from their mistakes and they are less likely to make 'mistakes' with the more 'advanced livestock' - but I continue to doubt that a 2 month old cycled tank is any different than a 5 year old tank in the hands of an experienced person (except perhaps that certain picky feeders need more 'stuff' on the rock that wouldn't necessarily be available in the 'newer tank').

 

[DSC reef]

In a sense are you saying if you add live stock on day one just add more bottled bacteria and you want another fish the next day just add more? I believe it helps but can't replace a good solid cycle and I'll always promote patience over instant satisfaction in this hobby. Many ways to reef and I respect your opinion.

 

[MnFish1]

if your going with 100% dry rock its too sterile for SPS. Even if you are feeding heavy you'll still suffer from low nutrients and lack of microfauna. .... If your going with SPS you need patients or some LR from a fellow hobbyist tanks

And yet many people that Frag corals and grow them in frag tanks have no live rock at all in their system. So there must be another reason for the problem you had aside from lack of live rock.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

And yet - is it the process (forced cycling) itself or is it the way that inexperienced people perform their forced cycling that leads to problems? If a person has added the correct amount of cycling bacteria and livestock, and the ammonia/ nitrite doesn't 'spike' and the chemistry in the tank is correct, what (scientifically) would cause a higher likelihood of cyano, etc? Part of the problem with 'new tanks' is the each piece of livestock adds to the need for more bacteria for the nitrogen cycle. This happens whether the livestock is added once a month or once a day. If a person adds the requisite cycling bacteria with new livestock to me there should be little or no difference between the 2 methods. (I know this is heretical thinking)

I agree with you that the inexperience you mention is the main problem. Like I mentioned originally, People with a 5 year old tank have a lot more 'experience' , they have learned from their mistakes and they are less likely to make 'mistakes' with the more 'advanced livestock' - but I continue to doubt that a 2 month old cycled tank is any different than a 5 year old tank in the hands of an experienced person (except perhaps that certain picky feeders need more 'stuff' on the rock that wouldn't necessarily be available in the 'newer tank').

Then you should put eight fish and an anemones a maxima and and a walt Disney in a two month old Dry rock tank and see what happens.

That would be a scientific way to do prove the point.

I've only been reefing for about eight years and I wouldn't do it. It could work I suppose , but it would be expensive and a lot of work imo.

 

[MnFish1]

In a sense are you saying if you add live stock on day one just add more bottled bacteria and you want another fish the next day just add more? I believe it helps but can't replace a good solid cycle and I'll always promote patience over instant satisfaction in this hobby. Many ways to reef and I respect your opinion.

Yes - kind of. Im not sure I would add a fish a day - but... basically yes. I also agree that patience is important. I guess I look at it this way. Lets say you are wanting to add 5 fish of the same size to a tank. Each time you add a fish the tank needs to cycle somewhat to account for the increased load, (whether with bacteria or patience) BUT - each fish you add, makes the next addition easier, because there are more bacteria there that multiply to take up the bio load for the new fish. This might give the allusion that adding a fish once a month is safer/better than adding 5 fish at a time, but if the appropriate amount of bacteria is added the 2 methods should work the same.

I think one mistake people make (using both methods) is to start a tank, cycle it and then say 'well its all good - the tank is cycled' - and then they add 10 pieces of various livestock and have problems. The 'cycled' tank is only cycled to support the stuff thats in it already - not any new additions. (By the way I respect your opinion as well)

 

[MnFish1]

Then you should put eight fish and an anemones a maxima and and a walt Disney in a two month old Dry rock tank and see what happens.

That would be a scientific way to do prove the point.

I've only been reefing for about eight years and I wouldn't do it. It could work I suppose , but it would be expensive and a lot of work imo.

You're right - that would be a way to prove the point. Thats why I suggested it as a BRS video experiment. In any case, there is no doubt that some livestock is more touchy than others, and as I said in one of my posts before, putting a piece of livestock that requires 'critters' only present on live rock to survive would not be a good idea in a 'new' aquarium. My comments were only based on the 'chemistry' of cycling.