Tang Police

[tcarlson]

I thought I was bad for having a yellow tang in a 58g previously, but this picture is much worse.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2327638439&category=3212

[naesco]

Just a small potato loser who is trying to make big bucks off the Nemo effect.

Please read this and get very angry and do something NOW
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201848

[Theo A]

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/overall.JPG

29 gallon
running since inception for 6 weeks now
zero problems
R/O drip w/kalk

What is so hard about salt tanks? The hardest part for me is deciding what to feed them every day!

[Aaron1100us]

Hippo tang in a 29?

[slipknottin]

Nice goni's too :lol:

[emull]

Yeah wait till you see how fast that hippo grows. I've got one in a 92 and did not think he would grow quick but I think my wife or kids may be adding sterroids:eek1: :clown: :spin2:

[Theo A]

Nice goni's too

??!?!?!?!

Good thing I've got a 180 getting ready to fire up then huh ? :D

[intheband]

those "gonis" look like xenia's to me;)

[naesco]

Originally posted by slipknottin
Nice goni's too :lol:

The gonis' will be gonners:(

[Preds]

I can't see any gonis.

[Theo A]

I'm confused here. What is a goni???

I never said Xenia was a goni.... someone shine a light on me please!

[Preds]

Goni is short for Goniopora, a hard coral genus, notoriously difficult to keep. I can't see any Gonis in your tank, but maybe the initial post was a joke? Or maybe I'm blind.

[bubbls255]

No goni's in our tank. Only dealing with soft corals till we get the 180 running. Don't fear.

[slipknottin]

That stuff on the left side of the tank are goni's. The stuff on the right side of the tank is Xenia.

[Theo A]

The confusion builds.......

Are you talking about MY picture???

Are you telling me those arn't red sea (or Pom-pom) xenia?!?

[rcmike]

Looks like xenia to me.

[slipknottin]

Actually I think its alvepora. Goni has 24 tentacles per polyp, alveopora has 12. Alvepora has about as bad a track record as Goni's do, so its not much better.

http://www.reefcorner.com/SpecimenSheets/alveopora.htm

[SPC]

Theo, do you know the species of corals you have in your tank?
Steve

[Theo A]

Red Sea ( or Pom-Pom)
Zooanthids
Toadstool leather
bubble anemone
elongata xenia
ricordia
various mushrooms

What is this, a quiz... Everywhere else I see xenia, it looks the same as mine. Why is mine so different?

[slipknottin]

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190947&highlight=red+sea+xenia

Look through that thread, there are various pictures of 'pom pom' Xenia.

[Theo A]

still confused as to why you think it's a goni then.........

[slipknottin]

Its not Xenia because the tentacles are not feathery. It looks like there are 12 tentacles on each branch, and that would make it an Alveopora.

You could post a pic in the coral forum and ask Eric...

[gregt]

Look's like red sea xenia to me. No gonipora anywhere I can see.

[Theo A]

Well, if it is alevopora.. I suppose the LFS is selling it as Red-sea.

If indeed it is alevopora, it's growing at a very fast rate.....

I think it's xenia, but I don't know shiat so I could be wrong....

[bubbls255]

Many places I have seen have tried to place "pulsing xenia" into its own classification, but as we all know, most of the species of xenia do indeed pulse.

http://photoweb.brinkster.net/coral/Tank2020-7-01_00088.jpg

xenia elongata (pumping xenia, waving hand xenia)

http://www.mops.on.ca/gallery/shumala/images/04.jpg

pom pom xenia Xenia umbellata

These are the two types of xenia we have in our tank.

That should conclude the discussion of what is or is not in the tank.

[Theo A]

so there :D :D :D

[boogs]

Looks like clove polyps to me.

Scott

[BlAcK_PeRcUlA]

No goni's in there. Just xenia

[diablofish]

I'm going with pompon as well, doesn't appear to have twelve or 24 "fingers". Looks like six, and it looks like xenia.

[wizardgus®]

Theo,
I hesitate to chime in here, but assuming your intentions are good. Kind of funny how so many jumped on the Goni/Xenia thing. You have much bigger ethical dilemma going in that tank. Having that much bio-load in place this quickly is pretty iffy to begin with. But having a BTA anemone in a tank 6 weeks old is pretty far from responsible reef keeping. Minimum age for a tank for any host anemone is 6 months. My suggestion, (and it is intended as that, not flames) is to do some more reading and research. The question you ask at the bottom of your posted pic will be answered over the next couple months. HTH

[Theo A]

Minimum age for a tank for any host anemone is 6 months

I'd like to see the hard and fast rule about that.

I have 3 small fish in a well skimmed 29 gallon tank, with over 40lbs of LR in it. 15 snails (plus the ones that just hatched)
10-12 crabs, etc to help clean up

Guess where my Ni and NA's are....... if you say anything over than zero then you are wrong.

The anemone and the clowns were the first to go in the tank :D
The anemone has grown considerably since btw.

You wanna get really shocked?

My tank cycled in 48 hours or less. Yup, thats right, Raw live rock, with NSW and live sand from the ocean.
The 3 and 4th day were the most exciting, as feather dusters, pods, worms, and a few baby stars started appearing.

Everyone says how my tank is going to crash.

What I don't understand is, if it's on the decline, then how come everything is growing and flourishing?
Even more shocking is my schedualed zero water changes....
unless something dies or an accident happens, my water will simply be supplimented with Ro/kalk drip.

Here is my water BTW:

PH 8.35
CA 440
Alk 10.6
Ni/Na - Nada

I am doing a lot of reading and research, but what I find and read is consistantly what was done 10 years ago. The first things these books always say about the tank cycling is that it should take 4-5 weeks. Mine took 48 HOURS. A measurable, testable cycle.

Now I'm going to get in my suit and hide.
:strooper:

[gregt]

I wish I had a dime for everyone that posted like you just did and then came back 3 months later realizing how wrong they were.

Slow and steady wins the race in this hobby. It's not a hard and fast rule, but you can pretty much guarantee success if you take it slow, while going too fast is pretty much guaranteed to cause problems.

[Theo A]

Hi Greg!

Since there have been a multitude of people that have had tanks crash like that, what should I be looking out for?

[gregt]

By the time you see something it will most likely be too late to do much about it. I hate to be a doomsayer, but from my experience that's how it works.

[Theo A]

Awesome!!!

I'll keep my eyes out for that.


Seriously though, thats all I hear from guys that didn't do it like I did. Please someone tell me what is going to happen if it's such a sure thing

[wayno]

Theo

It's rather ironic that you're posting in the "Responsible Reefkeeping" forum.

Wayne

[Theo A]

Thanks again for a great response!

you have great wisdom, please continue to share it with me!!

Gregt, my sarcasm isn't completely directed at you. But when all I ever hear is how is will die, with nothing to back it up, it just kinda sounds, well, pretty wack.

[gregt]

Nothing to back it up except seeing it happen time after time after time.

[BlAcK_PeRcUlA]

Theo A

I see that you're moving to a 180. If so, your tang should be ok as long as you do it soon. When you do set up it, make sure you take more time in the process. Then you will be bugged less.

[Theo A]

Whgat I don't understand is


"I've seen it time and time again"

Well, what has happened? PH spike, Ni spike, everything just gets together and decides, "Hey, the reefkeeper didn't have our tank up and running for 142 days before he added us, lets all commit suicide right now!"

The 180 will more than likely be set up by the same LFS that set up my 29. So don't hold your breath for a 6 month live rock curing, unless of course someone can tell me why?

[BlAcK_PeRcUlA]

There's more than one way to set up a successful tank so if you feel your way is good then you should go for it. I'd rather listen to the people who have done it before me.

[gregt]

It's not going to help for me to explain it. You are convinced that your way is working. You are going to have to change your own mind, I can't do it for you. It would be much better for you to do the research and see for yourself, or, you could see it first hand, as a lot of other people have (including myself). You are being a little overdramatic with the "committing suicide" comments, I'm just trying to help you avoid mistakes I've made, and seen countless others make. There's something to be said for learning something first hand, but don't expect people to be real excited about you doing it that way when there's a million and a half posts on here for you to learn from.

[Theo A]

I learn best from scientific data. Just because someone tells me that it isn't good doesn't make sense to me Greg.

If the water params are good....
And the inhabitants of the tank are growing.....

Then what is going wrong/where did I go wrong.
And more importantly .....WHY is it going to go wrong.

A LOT of posts on here arn't from those who have really LEARNED what has happened. A lot of posts on here are from people that have heard, or read about it on the internet. If I did everything I've read or heard about from the internet, well, I'd prolly be dead by now.

[gregt]

Ok, I'll bite . . .

A new tank is not stable yet. You may have good parameters today, but it's still in a constant state of flux for the first few months. You still have the standard diatom bloom at 3 months, and the optional cyano bloom to go through. Life get's real interesting then....

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by slipknottin
Actually I think its alvepora. Goni has 24 tentacles per polyp, alveopora has 12. Alvepora has about as bad a track record as Goni's do, so its not much better.

I disagree with that. IME, alveopora is much easier to keep. Back in Omaha I had a piece that had been fragged off of someone else's that they'd had for over a year.

Either way, in that pick, each of the polyps only has 8 tentacles.

Seriously though, thats all I hear from guys that didn't do it like I did.

Theo, the problem is that many here have done it like you did, or something very similar at some point. You have the opportunity to learn from others' mistakes, rather than making them yourself.

Even if the nitrogen cycle is finished (and I've also seen it that quickly) that doesn't mean that your tank is stable. Far from it. There are innumerable parameters that will stabilize, many of them immeasurable (unless you have a whole lot of money to dump into getting them tested profesionally). Many people find that 6-12 months is when the tank really takes off. Even people who thought their tank was doing well at 8 weeks realize how wrong they were when things REALLY start working. Putting in sensitive animals such as anemones before that puts them at great risk for dying (unnecessarily, I might add) in the still fluctuating tank.

Well, what has happened? PH spike, Ni spike, everything just gets together and decides, "Hey, the reefkeeper didn't have our tank up and running for 142 days before he added us, lets all commit suicide right now!"

They may as well, for all you can see. When it happens, it happens quickly. Often, by the time you figure out that something's going wrong, everything you test will be out of wack, so who knows what starts it; it can be many factors. You can hit a critical deficiency or toxicity level in something for one of the animals, it dies, and then drags the rest of the tank with it.

FWIW, many European and Japanese reefers (and this is sort of starting to catch on here) will have their tanks set up with LR/LS for 6 months before they add anything else, much less anemones.

Dave

[cecilturtle]

The pic does kinda look like an Alveopora at first glance, though there are a few stems that seem to have 8 fingers...so in all fairness, Slip may not have seen it as well as some of you eagles. As to Theo, I can understand your reaction when someone dooms your tank to failure when the "professionals" at the LFS sold it to you and said everything would be fine. OTOH, I can also see everyone else's point when the same questions pop up again and again when a cursory glance through the archives would answer most if not all of these "questions". Without trying to read any info on your own though, I must admit it sounds like you're setting bait........

[dendronepthya]

When I was a newbie, it was impossible to get anything through to me. It is a trend I see with many other people new to this hobby, and it is unfortunate. So much of this hobby is doing something really dumb and wasting money. I can't even blame it on the LFS because for the most part, they gave good advice. I simply wouldn't take NO for an answer when I wanted those two lionfish for my 20 gallon. Months later, I did get a little bit better, but I still tried the bamboo shark in a 55. There is no scientific data that says this can't be done. There is almost 0 scientific data in this hobby to begin with, and there are only a few absolutes. Although there is no study saying a shark can't be kept in a 55 gallon, I can say for certain that it is a moronic thing to do. People with experience can see these sorts of things.

[SPC]

Originally posted by Theo A
I am doing a lot of reading and research, but what I find and read is consistantly what was done 10 years ago. The first things these books always say about the tank cycling is that it should take 4-5 weeks. Mine took 48 HOURS. A measurable, testable cycle.

I think you are confused here between stable and cycled. My tank was set up for 6 weeks before I added the first fish or coral, and even then, both species were considered to be of the hardy variety.

My tank has now been running for almost 3 years, but if I'm not careful with my maintenace, or if a spawn occurs, or if an animal dies and decays, or the caulerpa goes sexual, or..., I could find my tank in that unstable situation again.

One other thing I would like to point out for any new people that may be reading this thread, most of what was done 10 years ago, as far as water quality issues go, is still applicable today. 10 years ago consciences reefers knew that it took time for a tank to become stable before adding delicate marine life. You know how they knew this? The Marine Biologist working in reef environements had data showing the water chemistry of these areas. The reefer then used common sense and said "hmmmm, thats probably the target I should shoot for seeing as these animals have lived millions of years in these conditions."
Steve

[Fuzzy]

Hi Theo,

Almost a year ago I set up a 30 long in my office. The tank had a 5" DSB seeded with a detrivore kit and about 15 pounds of FL Keys LS. I had about 50 pounds of fully cured Figi and Tonga live rock. I allowed to the tank to cycle for 4 months before I put a fish or coral in it. It went through the normal ammonia spike, a diatom bloom, followed by a nasty hair algae problem. RO/DI water changes, a good clean up crew and a Lawnmower Blennie took care of the rest.
The tank was up and running for 6 months with perfect water parameters and looked great. It had only 4 small fish and about a half dozen soft corals. My clients absolutely loved the tank. Then one day I came in to work and found everything covered with a nasty red slime. I mean covered, and I do mean everything. To this day I have no idea what caused it to happen. All I know was it was a real PITA to get rid of. I did massive RO/DI water changes, upgraded from a Prism to a Remora Skimmer and got new lamps for the PC fixture. I even used a turkey baster to blow the junk off the rock, sand, pretty much everything.

So I guess my experience confirms what others have said, a 10 month old system is still immature and subject to major problems.

Bottom line, patience is the key to successful reef keeping.

Fuzz

[mkirda]

Originally posted by Theo A
Guess where my Ni and NA's are....... if you say anything over than zero then you are wrong.

And the fact that you say it is zero shows that you are using a test kit that is worse than useless.

Do yourself a favor and invest in a good LaMotte or better yet, Hach, Nitrate test kit. It can measure accurately nitrate levels from 0.02ppm to roughly 40ppm, if you follow the high range instructions.
This kit is the most accurate you can get short of using a colorimeter.

I guarantee you that your nitrate is NOT zero.

Otherwise, keep up on the tank, and be ready to do water changes if anything does come up. I cringe everytime I read a post like yours because so many of these tanks tend to crash after a time.
I wish you the best, and hope nothing happens.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[Theo A]

Otherwise, keep up on the tank, and be ready to do water changes if anything does come up. I cringe everytime I read a post like yours because so many of these tanks tend to crash after a time.

Will do, and thanks! Although I don't keep to much water mixed up, I have access to fresh NSW just about anytime I need it. Where would be a good place to shop for the kits you are describing?

[cecilturtle]

Salifert makes as good a test as any that you'll need and that is pretty much foolproof. Get it online and you can buy several of the kits saving even more money. Calcium, Alkalinity, Nitrate, and pH are the most important ones...and should be enough for you. As for NSW, is that from the beach in Daytona? :confused:

[Project Reef]

Originally posted by slipknottin
Actually I think its alvepora. Goni has 24 tentacles per polyp, alveopora has 12. Alvepora has about as bad a track record as Goni's do, so its not much better.

http://www.reefcorner.com/SpecimenSheets/alveopora.htm

Slip the only corals in that picture are two different types of Xenia, 'long tentacle' plate coral, GSP, a toadstool leather and zoos. No Goni's or Alevoporas.

[Theo A]

As for NSW, is that from the beach in Daytona?

Collected quite a distance from the shore ;)

[mkirda]

Originally posted by Theo A
Where would be a good place to shop for the kits you are describing?

LaMotte are available from a few on-line shops. Hach are only available from the manufacturer. www.hach.com

And, sorry to the other poster, Salifert kits, while decent, are not in the same class as the Hach kits.

Note: I do not really recommend the HACH kits for Calcium though: To my eyes, I find the color change to be way too difficult to discern, even when I follow the advice of Craig Bingman or Randy Holmes-Farley and dilute the solution two or three times.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[intheband]

MY TANK CYCLED WITHIN A WEEK TOO THEO-AND ADDING ALOT OF HARDY CORALS RIGHT AFTER THE CYCLE WORKS OUT WELL IME-I DO LIKE TO GO A LITTLE SLOWER WITH THE FISH .I GUESS SOME PEOPLE HAVE THEIR EXPERIENCES-AND YOU AND I HAVE OURS..MY TANK IS NOW GOING ON FIVE YEARS AND PRACTICALLY EVERY CORAL IVE EVER BOUGHT IS STILL WITH ME -WITH EXCEPTION OF A GONI (LOL) AN ELEGANCE , A LONG TENTACLE PLATE , A COUPLE ACRO COLONIES AND SOME BTA'S-THAT WERE ADDED WAY AFTER 6 MONTHS I MIGHT ADD(THATS THE ONLY CORALS I CAN THINK OF THAT I EVER LOST) -AND THE ONES IVE SOLD AND TRADED.

TANK LOOKS GREAT SO FAR-LOOKS LIKE YOURE PRETTY MUCH ON THE RIGHT TRACK TO ME:)

[tcarlson]

intheband... I hear you no need to yell!

Theo A...Shouldn't you say thank you to me for starting a thread where you could get so much one on one advice on your tank.

:lol:
Tom

[Theo A]

Thanks for all the comments, concerns, and ideas.

Thanks Tom :D

[intheband]

yelling ?lol .i love when people call caps yelling:rolleyes:it doesnt bother me at all when somoen posts in all caps,but-
sorry if i anoyed anyone with that -didnt notice when i posted till after i hit the send button and said screw it-but its not yelling -youre on the computer man -you cant hear what i type :p

[cecilturtle]

Mkirda,

I have never heard of Hach though I have often heard that LaMotte is the best. It is my understanding that testing is of the utmost importance in the early stages of setting up an aquairum and that is not just in allowing the cycle to take its course but also in getting the hobbiest to become better acquainted with a delicate ecosystem, at least in relative terms. Once aquainted, why is it important to know that nitrates are dead on some number vs the results given with Salifert's low test...for a hobbiest? I do not ask this tongue in cheek, or in anyway inflammatory, only in that I am interested in knowing if I am doing something wrong. I do, however, agree in the need for testing, weekly perhaps for several variables, but is such accuracy needed?

[Flanders]

intheband - wear some earplugs! ;)

[intheband]

flanders-actually maybe i need to clean my ears out so ill quit yelling:D

cecilturtle:imo that kind of accuracy isnt necessary-hell ive only tested nitrates once in the last four years or so-and thats was only because i removed my dsb's and wanted to see if it made a difference-it didnt ,nitrates still undetectable on salifert kit.

the only tests i own now are ca /alk-and imo they are the only ones you really need.i test those every few weeks or so.

[Krusk]

intheband

do you have any pics of your 5 years old tank?
to show off ;)

[mkirda]

Originally posted by cecilturtle
Mkirda,

Once aquainted, why is it important to know that nitrates are dead on some number vs the results given with Salifert's low test...for a hobbiest? {snip}Is such accuracy needed?

Cecilturtle,

Let me put this in this fashion: For a given water parameter, we want to know the result.
For some given tanks, we know that they are:
0.01 ppm
0.1 ppm
1 ppm
10 ppm
100 ppm

The differences between these are five magnitude of order. IOW, 10,000 times.

If we measure these with a given test kit, I would argue that you would want to know roughly where the number fell.
If test kit A could not distinguish between 0.01 and 10 ppm, then the test is useless in my opinion.

Some of the hobbyist test kits sold are that bad.
Some are pretty good.
Very few, if any, have the accuracy of the kits typically used in labs.

For some parameters, this is of little concern. For others, it can be of paramount concern.

I would argue that nitrate and orthophosphate are the two parameters that contribute the most to algal growth. Of secondary concern is grazing pressure.

If/when I notice any sign of something going on in my tank that looks like a downward trend, the first thing I do is grab my test kits for these two parameters. I know that they should be at or near the very lowest levels of detectability for my tank. If they register at all, I know something is up immediately. I can then act accordingly.

If you keep these animals in your tank, you have made a commitment to their health and to their care. They should be kept in conditions that approach the natural conditions they came from. Fish can tolerate higher nitrate levels, and are even tolerant of higher phosphate levels, but ask yourself if this is a good thing? Is this something to strive for in a tank?

Anyone who is first starting out should keep records of these parameters in their tank for a couple of years. They need to gain experience: That only comes over time. Knowing what happened chemically (and accurately), and being able to correlate this with animal health, is imperative to learning.

You will find out, over time, that some corals tend to thrive better with some low level of nitrate than others. Some die back without it. Others tend to die back with it. It is important to learn this, and having accurate numbers is the only way.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

[cecilturtle]

Mike,

Your point is well taken. Thank you.

[JohnsReef]

I don't think is a matter of tank's maturity but the reefer's. A responsable one will read and study before deciding whether or not to get an specimen for his/her mini-reef, and whether is the right time or not.
Yes it is true that the tank gets more "stable"if you want to call it that (not really in such confined water volume) with time, and it is wise to add corals slowly, so to give time to the Aquarium not to "mature" but to "grow" bacteria, organisms and others that will/can/could provide stability (or peace of mind) to what we all call "new tank syndrome", and to allow the novice to learn about the specifics of a prospect buy.
I believe that the way the tank was setup from day one, determines (partly) the speed and success in which a person can stock an aquarium, and still be responsable about it. I read on this thread about a person that had a tank running for a long time and then it crashed, with no apparent reason. I found at least 4 possible reasons just by reading the post, and 2 were related to the equipment used. If you accumulate organics, (waste/food/chemicals) (dissolved/undissolved) over a long period of time, and there's (was) no ways of exporting them of the tank, unimaginable levels of pollutants, and others that we don't even know about, will rise to the point of saturation and create problems like bacteria and other (not understood causes) for the tank to crash.
Why? (ask yourself) do you think it gets harder and harder to find what causes the "weird" bacterias and such that kill patches of life in our oceans? If you ask me, My answer would be that us humans are introducing (just like in our tanks) pollutants and others to the oceans that we can't export out and and the accumulation of such create the "mystery" crashes of a certain area(s) in our oceans we all read or watch on the TV!!
We like to think of our tanks as "stable","constant","mature"etc, but in reality, all this are nothing but words we put in our heads to give us a sense of control, and peace of mind to an otherwise chaotic arrange of what we are just beggining to understand. We cannot control what we can't understand, and nobody knows (yet) EXACTLY the complexity of our oceans or aquariums.
I don't believe your tank will crash theo, and I do not believe you have to wait 6 months to start adding corals. You did not get a concret reason of why you should not put your anemone so early because we don't know of one for sure. Your tank's stability is determined by your practices, and I believe you will seek the best ones you can/learn. I find it "advance limiting" and mind buggling when someone calls something like this "irresponsable", without having a clear understanding of why it could be, or whenever someone says "it cannot be done" based on failures of predecessors. Log all your data, and share it, we might understand in the future what other people were doing wrong before, and what they did differently from you and why you were able to keep an anemone alive when everybody else said you could not.
Keep reefing,
John

[bubbls255]

Well said John ;)

[Brad Gardner]

Tangs belong in the ocean NOT in our little glass boxes.

[gregt]

JohnsReef,
I respectfully disagree. I believe concrete reasons were given. Stability is a real thing, and the algae cycles I described occur. You can choose to pretend they don't exist if you like, but they are the things that "mature" reefers know happen to every tank.

[Brad Gardner]

I respectfully disagree. Screw the algae cycles.


Regards,

Brad Gardner

[SPC]

Originally posted by JohnsReef
I don't believe your tank will crash theo, and I do not believe you have to wait 6 months to start adding corals. You did not get a concret reason of why you should not put your anemone so early because we don't know of one for sure.

And your concrete reasons for this belief are what John?
Steve

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by Brad Gardner
I respectfully disagree. Screw the algae cycles.


What insight! Same useful commentary as always from Brad ....



Theo - I would agree with you on some points; except for choosing the inhabitants of the tank. [I'd argue that if you want to forget the convential hype, you should do so with captive propogated organisms. Killing an ocean harvested animal by your own ideas on reef-keeping is not responsible, in my opinion. Experiment all you like on the captive-raised though, as that is sustainable, even if it can be called cruel]


Your tank could have cycled fast, and could be stable- as much as anyone's tank is stable. Without algae cycles yet I think you will have some issues coming on - devastating? God knows, probably [hopefully] not.

I don't think 142 days as you put it is required for tank cycling. Even a few weeks to a month after water testing show the cycling is `complete' is still a good idea. All the 'pods, bacteria, and good hitchhikers off your LR do much better when given time to develop.

My tank cycled in 48 hours, though 80% of the rock was from a 2 year old Fish-only tank and the rest of the sold as `cured' LR really was cured.

But the amount of tunicates, mini-starfish, 'pods, mushrooms [3!] and a hitchhiker Pseudocorynactis coral that appeared and spread all over in those first weeks before I stocked anything in it is the reason to wait. I have stuff in my tank, that grew of the rock in the initial 3 weeks before I stocked anything - that cannot be bought and some is rare.

Maybe you'll get that off your already-stocked tank's LR, but probably won't have it reproduce like mad and spread all over like my Corynactis did [at least 40 across the lower reaches of the tank]. Especially with things that may eat it, or eat it's spawn.

What makes your tank unique and even more beautiful is what develops given a little time from your rock. Most people who gave it even a few weeks or months after cycling have stuff in their tanks that is not in most people's tanks - can't be bought anywhere I've seen - and in my mind is the coolest stuff of all.

Asking for science on why to wait after initial cycling is like asking for science on global warming. While studies show it exists, someone can come and show some study that says it's not happening or not the result of fossil fuels, etc.
Waiting after cycling is like this - only with less studies. No one has some magic study to say `here is exactly why it's a good idea' ... but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea; that you won't get major benefits off of waiting for the cycle and for things to develop on their own after.

Never mind aquascaping that 120 is going to take quite a while to get it to your aesthetic desires. The more rock, the more possibilities for constructing an amazing reef-scape. If just to play with the rock, I'd give it time.

You may be suprised at what develops just from the rock alone. I know I was [still am] amazed at all the beautiful red with long clear white-ball-tipped tentacles Pseudocorynactics that came off of one piece of my rock. Took a lot of searching to find out what they are, then read Shimek and other experts talking about how they are `rare'. None of the experts know much about them- and I have a lovely population to learn and experiment with. They may have developed if I stocked my tank earlier, but I doubt to the extent they have.

[Brad Gardner]

Tangs belong in the ocean NOT in our little glass boxes.

[Theo A]

I've started watching at night now, and wow, there is stuff in there that I had no idea

Mysis, lots of them everywhere

Last night I saw 2 smaller sized brittle stars, a few bristle worms (one was ~4" long), and a whole bunch of other creatures that I can't describe.

Everything seems to be doing great :)

My rock was "raw" fiji rock

My # of days thing was just given for sarcasm :D

[Brad Gardner]

Tangs belong in the ocean NOT in our little glass boxes.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by Brad Gardner
Tangs belong in the ocean NOT in our little glass boxes.

Ah, Brad and his endless chanting of his mantra.

What a persuasive debater!

[BlAcK_PeRcUlA]

Tangs belong in the ocean NOT in our little glass boxes.

Nothing belongs in out little glass boxes. Actually, mine's acrylic but I'd rather have glass.
Yea sorry about that just trying to add some comic relief

[Theo A]

Thanks for the insiteful knowledge brad!

Thank god for the ignore feature.

If anyone else wants to know about it, simply click on his profile, then bottom right of the screen to ignore posts by XXXX. It will simply not show his dumb and immature attempts at post whoring.

Funny how he preaches this about tangs, but if you go to their "club" webpage, the opening picture is of a yellow tang :D

[DgenR8]

Okay guys, we can go back to the topic of the thread now, Brad is no longer with us. Kinda makes ignoring him not worth the time it would take to do so ;)

[DavidTQ]

I use NSW in my marine tank, and also stocked my tank within 48 hours (mainly allowing time for it to warm up and then to get to a working day to buy a fish) I set my tank up in this way on the advice of a marine biologist who happens to live near me. he puts seahorse's in tanks on the day he sets them up, only time to warm up, no cycling etc, which some people here would no doubt be up in arms about. He has had seahorses living past 8 years on him and has been using tanks setup like this for the last 20 years.

I am following his advice in setting up my tanks (which includes not running a skimmer) I DO NOT have his knowledge of marine life but am not having any problems so far but I again am only 2 months into keeping them, my ammonia nitrite and nitrate levels are also reading 0 on my test kits, which I'm not too worried about the accuracy as I dont see levels under 2.5ppm as being worth worrying about.

I have also been told that all marine salts contain more nitrate than NSW despite the claims of their manufacturer's they all say noadded nitrate or phosphate but actually contain them even when they are made from pharmeceutical grade chemicals I belive the figure that was quoted was 60x as much as NSW.

As far as anemones go I actually had some in my tank from day 1 before it warmed up, but those were local beadlet anemones that are incredibly hardy rockpool dwellers and so their daily live consist of being exposed to the air at temperatures of upto 28d and then being plunged into 12d sea water as the tide comes back in, they are also famed over here for their long life (1 example having been in captivity for 50 years) I would be far more careful about keeping more delicate species though, these ones I knew to be virtually indestructible. (the higher temperature also isnt a problem as they also live in the mediterannean) they have been a live in captivity for 2 months here with no problems and one spawning.

I am not a marine expert I am a marine newbie who gets his advice from an expert. So far so good. I dont think it fair to say that everyone who setsup their tanks in this manner is going to have problems there are more than enough well established carefully stocked tanks that crash for one reason or another.

David

[JohnsReef]

Salty Zoo,
Sorry It took me so long to reply to your dissagreement. I didn't see anybody had posted something related to my comment.I just happened to read it today. I mean my reply in a constructive argumental way, and not to be taken offensively.

Funny how you limit my words and read just in between the lines, yet you didn't read (or chose to ignore) the fact that I mentioned what you described/said. I do BELIEVE there's a cycle as I mention in my post, and I do believe of a level of "stability" as you choose to call it (will elaborate later). I don't recall mentioning that the "algae blooms" don't occur, as a matter of fact I described it in a very subtle way, assumming that a responsable "mature" reefer would know what New tank syndrome involves. The algae bloom (at least one of them) just marks the end of the Nitrogen cylce, when concentration of organics/nitrates and others reach to a point that provides algae with the necessary "food" in order to exist/develop and become visible in what we all "mature" reefers like to call: algae blooms/ detritus (or however you choose to call it). This, is just the beggining of New tank Syndrome, and should not be confused with the ending of our "just born" unstable tank conditions. Seems to me that by you mentioning you DID gave "CONCRETE" reasons, you also give the idea that after this happens (algae bloom) your tank is stable... (please correct me if I limited your idea/s). If this is so, I am sure that you, as a, "mature reefer", know that algae blooms are mostly concentrations of nutrients/organics/proteins, and that are not dependant to tank's stability, meaning: you can have multiple algae blooms while cycling, and after cycling. As a matter of fact, you and I know that by overfeeding, having something die in the system or even by overdosing and additive can cause an an algae bloom to a well "mature", "stable" tank. Please describe to me what you call stability as being REAL. If you call stability to having water parameters that do not fluctuate, and if you call a system stable based upon algae blooms, that's ( no offense) a very limited concept to "stable".
I should emphasize that I DO believe (as I mentioned in my first post), that the tank goes thru a period of great instability, and that time will provide more organisms that will make the tank less "unstable", but by no means I am willing to say that the tank is STABLE and call it REAL. It's instability that gives and sparks life in the tank, and it's this edge of chaos and stability that keep it alive. You say that stability is a REAL thing... My question is not related to stability but to REAL, can you please tell me what you call REAL??

[JohnsReef]

Steve,
Thank you for your reply.
Please don't let my words read/sound harsh!.

A belief does not need concret reasons. If this was the case, (and please use this as one of many examples, and do not let it be offensive) religion would have to be justified with "concret reasons". Do you BELIEVE there's a God? if so..., please state concret reasons for your belief?
See?

Read in between the lines a little more carefully:

"You DID NOT get a CONCRET REASON of why you should not put your anemone so early because WE DON"T KNOW OF ONE FOR SURE."

And that, "WE", includes me as well.

Thank you again for your reply!

[JohnsReef]

Please do apologize my grammatical mistakes. English is not my first language.

[JohnsReef]

Middleton Mark,
I don't think killing a living creature is right at all... to me it doesn't matter whether it was born in a tube or in the wild. Your comment suggests that life is disposable when we propagate it or cultivate it. Death to experimentation for a HOBBY it's not worth in any account (my point of view alone), and us as responsable reefkeepers should encourage to preserve the wild and cultured life at all costs. I do understand you idea as for cultured Vs Wild, and it is a clever one, but I dissagree that's OK to experiment on one over the other. It almost sounds like: "we made it and created it, so it's ok if we end it" . I know this is probably not how you mean it, but it sure sounds like it. Please reply,

PS: I Totally agree with the rest of your post, and truly appreciated your comments. I specially like the way you write about the invaluable organisms that will flourish with time and that you cannot buy in stores and how you DONT limit concepts. Your views are organized and intelligent, thanks for sharing them with us,

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by JohnsReef
Middleton Mark,
I don't think killing a living creature is right at all... to me it doesn't matter whether it was born in a tube or in the wild. Your comment suggests that life is disposable when we propagate it or cultivate it. Death to experimentation for a HOBBY it's not worth in any account (my point of view alone), and us as responsable reefkeepers should encourage to preserve the wild and cultured life at all costs. I do understand you idea as for cultured Vs Wild, and it is a clever one, but I dissagree that's OK to experiment on one over the other. It almost sounds like: "we made it and created it, so it's ok if we end it" . I know this is probably not how you mean it, but it sure sounds like it. Please reply,

I think I stated what I did to make a point than to suggest that harming anything in our tanks is good at all. I certainly don't `experiment' with any living thing [except fragging corals, which as I'm doing it based on instructions out of books/online is what I'd call experimenting].

But I do think that if someone is going with practices that aren't close to the `tried and true' methods should not use wild-caught fish for their first inhabitants. That is not at all to mean that killing something captive-propogated is OK in my book at all.

But I'm aware that some people are going to `do their own thing', despite evidence that it may be bad for their tank's inhabitants. If things don't work out and it proves to be bad or the end for their tank's life [even just some] ... it seems more `sustainable' to me if it's captive-propogated. While it's pointlessly cruel and a terrible example of husbandry - it bothers me more to hear it is a wild-caught specimen - one whose population in the wild is unknown [to me] and possibly declining.

I'm not saying buy propogated and feel free to kill them ... not at all. That is not the hobby I practice, nor one I'd like to be connected to. But for people who are going to stock a tank the day after putting everything together and filling it - despite advice to the contrary - I guess it seems that captive-propogated creatures have a better chance of dealing with bad-tank issues and I'd rather not have wild-populations taken for such behavior [that I consider irresponsible].

I've heard too many stories of what I feel is terribly irresponsible behavior - even in my short time - and it bothers me that any wild fish were used in the process. For the harvest of one fish that makes it - others die in shipping, transport, at a LFS ... which is likely the case too with captive-propogated.

Neither life should be considered expendable at all. I just feel that captive-produced is more `sustainable' populations. If bad husbandry is practiced on them it is just a terrible example and a very sad and cruel thing. I'd certainly hope that aquarist would learn a quick lesson and not do it again if possible [and feel bad as I would] - but it's a system that allows for such mistakes to be made.
I'm not condoning it in any way, I'm just aware that with captive-produced organisms there will be a known continued population despite how many people act cruelly and irresponsibly. I'd hate to see such practices affect the wild populations in any way - as at some time in the future those populations may have problems. Maybe they won't, but we cannot know that. I know that captive produced clownfish [for example] can be sold to every American and still the wild clowns will be fine. I doubt that could happen if they were all wild.

I hope I'm more clear here. I certainly don't believe `created in tank = cruelty ok' nor was I attempting to suggest that. I just think that minimizing the harvest of wild creatures is the `better way' if there is one. It's not going to save the reefs [too many other things are harming them other than our hobby]. But it will help mitigate any `nemo crazes' from impacting the wild populations - if they do. As it's an unknown, I'd rather protect it until we know it can be sustainable. Given the popularity and growth of the salt-water hobby in the last 10-20 years ... I don't think know the long-term effects it will have on popular fish. Thus I think captive-prop is at least a known population that can cope with increased demand.

[SPC]

Originally posted by JohnsReef
Steve,
Thank you for your reply.
Please don't let my words read/sound harsh!.

No problem John, as long as we continue to discuss the subject in an adult manner, then I see no reason to take offence at anything you say.

A belief does not need concret reasons.

So let me get this straight John. Some posters to this thread stated that a tank needs to be stable and give what I would consider good concrete reasons. You give no concrete reasons for your belief but thats ok because its just a belief?

If this was the case, (and please use this as one of many examples, and do not let it be offensive) religion would have to be justified with "concret reasons".

It is not justified through science John. Are you saying that your reefkeeping methods are based on faith and not science?

Do you BELIEVE there's a God? if so..., please state concret reasons for your belief?

I would have no concrete reasons for this as far as science goes John. It seems that you are mixing up ones beliefs in the supernatural with provable science.

Read in between the lines a little more carefully:

Well I'm not sure if I should or not. You just replied to Salty Zoo with:

Funny how you limit my words and read just in between the lines,

....so which is it John, would you like for some of us to read between the lines and not others?

"You DID NOT get a CONCRET REASON of why you should not put your anemone so early because WE DON"T KNOW OF ONE FOR SURE."

Sure WE (that WE does not include you) have concrete reasons. You may not know for sure, and thats fine, but please don't mistake your belief for science.
Steve

[Theo A]

:Sure WE (that WE does not include you) have concrete reasons. You may not know for sure, and thats fine, but please don't mistake your belief for science.
WONDERFUL, someone knows. Now explain it please

My 29 gallon cycled in 48 hours
I've got all sorts of creatures in there, from day 3, and not a single one has died.
My BTA anemone was one of the first inhabitants.....guess what, I don't really feed him either.. and he's getting bigger.

So if an anemone shouldn't go in so early, hows about someone step up to the plate and explain why, instead of simply saying "no"... And while you are explaining that, if you might give some insight as to why my entire tank didn't "crash" as so many said it would. :reading:

All the people that do that sound like that idiot that was banned a few posts ago.....:rollface:

[gregt]

Ok, you're right. You're the first person ever to keep something alive for 3 weeks. The rest of us are all idiots.

You've been given reasons, you just choose to pretend they aren't real.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread as it's a waste of time.

[DavidTQ]

I think there is more than one way to have a stable system, the tried tested methods may work, but who hasnt had problems even with tanks established using any of the "proven" techniques, whether you are running a berlin tank an eco systems a dsb or any other now tried and tested method, at one time these were all experimental systems, they are not the last word in marine keeping, I for one believe that the time will come when the advanced hobbyists will be breeding tangs in their tanks at home and when clowns will be the guppies of the SW tank.

The system which this person is using sounds awfully similiar to the one recommended by the marine biologist I know, who keeps animals alive for 8+ years that many people using tried and tested methods have problems keeping for 5 weeks. Whether or not this poster has came to these ideas himself or not the fact remains that this type of setup has proved very successful, even if not everyone is aware \ able to use it (due to living far from the sea etc)

Using natural rocks substrate and sea water does constitute a far more mature and natural system than mixing up sterile salt water etc, whether or not this tank works remains to be seen, but I think bashing an idea because its not your chosen method or the popular way to do things I dont think is sensible.

I can see why people would take offence at his tone, but taking offence at someones writing style isnt necesarily a reason for bashing the system he is using, Maybe he has things wrong but the methods he is using is very similiar to those of some experts. Maybe he is overlooking something, I dont know his setup well enough to know.

David

[Theo A]

Ok, you're right. You're the first person ever to keep something alive for 3 weeks. The rest of us are all idiots.

WOW. Thanks Greg. Another extremely insitful post. All you ever said was "It isn't stable, because, it hasn't had enough time"

What develops in time? Why does it take time for it to develop?

Since you are so knowledgeable, and want to help (because, after all, thats the reason why people come to RC), then hows about you step up to the plate and provide some KNOWLEDGE, instead of simply saying, "it hasn't cycled long enough", or something to that reguard.

I'm not an expert, and I certinly don't proclaim to be one. All I know is what has happened with my tank has been nothing but good from day 1. And I'm happy with it.

[boogs]

Theo A:

Sarcastic remarks will not help garner any useful responses.

It's cool that your tank is doing well but your results are extremely rare.

Tanks need time to mature. What does that mean? Well...it means it takes some time for a body of lifeless water to become filled with life. Initially there are explosions in populations of various organisms from bacteria to pods as the tank slowly comes to equilibrium. Along with this comes chemical stability which helps support the various populations of life in your tank.

I wouldn't argue that your tank isn't doing great - if you say it is and in 6 months to a year everything is still thriving then your point is taken.

Scott

[Theo A]

Sarcastic remarks will not help garner any useful responses

Point taken. Sorry about that.


Tanks need time to mature. What does that mean? Well...it means it takes some time for a body of lifeless water to become filled with life. Initially there are explosions in populations of various organisms from bacteria to pods as the tank slowly comes to equilibrium. Along with this comes chemical stability which helps support the various populations of life in your tank.

I used Natural sea water, and live sand. It was far from lifeless, and that is what I attribute to my success.

CA of 420 and dKh of 11.2 ok?

[JohnsReef]

Bravo! DAVID TQ!! An insightful graceful post!!

[JohnsReef]

SPC,

This whole thread has been based on BELIEFS and CONCRETE REASONS. You ask me to not confuse my beliefs for Science, and you say that you have CONCRETE reasons to YOUR beliefs. Let me tell you a little history lesson:

A long time ago, a well known group of the best scientists in the world, BELIEVED and even thougth they PROVED with CONCRETE REASONS the earth was flat. They condemned and punished he or she who would defy this ABSOLUTE FACT.
Then, a man, who I will call Theo, (lol)( really Gallileo), had a different point of view and BELIEVED the earth was not flat. He made smart observations, and this allowed him to see that what scientists thought as CONCRETE, was not as CONCRETE and that maybe their REASONS were PROBABLE not ABSOLUTE. He realized scientists had blinded themselves from the thruth, and that they had excluded REAL SCIENTIFIC possibilities and alternative REASONS. Theo became a believer of his BELIEFS and he was determined to prove them right. He heard and understood the reasons the clevermen preached, but they refused his beliefs because they could not understand them.
I guess I don't need to tell you the rest of the story.


YOUR concret reasons are being CRUSHED with time,as more and more people choose the less travelled road (just like THEO) and show that what was called impossible or irresponsable was nothing more than one more road to success. There's more than one succesful way to creating and stocking a reef. You would have been called crazy if you didnt use an undergravel filter 7-10 years ago in your reef, and you might be called "crazy" if you use them now. I guess you are right when you exclude me from the "...We have concret reasons..." sentence, because "I" do not want to be in the group of well known SCIENTISTS that were proven wrong. My beliefs are linked to science and are not based on faith. I think DAVID TQ can explain my point better than I can, but for what is worth, time will tell.

[JohnsReef]

I realized my redundancy when I said: "Theo became a believer of his beliefs", and apologize for it. Sometimes the language barrier impedes me to express thoughts on more elaborate ways!

[SPC]

Originally posted by JohnsReef
SPC,

This whole thread has been based on BELIEFS and CONCRETE REASONS. You ask me to not confuse my beliefs for Science, and you say that you have CONCRETE reasons to YOUR beliefs. Let me tell you a little history lesson:

A long time ago, a well known group of the best scientists in the world, BELIEVED and even thougth they PROVED with CONCRETE REASONS the earth was flat. They condemned and punished he or she who would defy this ABSOLUTE FACT.
Then, a man, who I will call Theo, (lol)( really Gallileo), had a different point of view and BELIEVED the earth was not flat. He made smart observations, and this allowed him to see that what scientists thought as CONCRETE, was not as CONCRETE and that maybe their REASONS were PROBABLE not ABSOLUTE. He realized scientists had blinded themselves from the thruth, and that they had excluded REAL SCIENTIFIC possibilities and alternative REASONS. Theo became a believer of his BELIEFS and he was determined to prove them right. He heard and understood the reasons the clevermen preached, but they refused his beliefs because they could not understand them.
I guess I don't need to tell you the rest of the story.

No David you don't need to tell the rest of the story if you plan to screw it up as bad as the first one;) . Let me try and help you out with a bit of accurate history.

Galileo (you spelled the mans name wrong BTW) lived in a period of time where there weren't any real scientists such as we know today. Why, because those that might have called themselfs this were controlled by the church. They knew that if they postulated any theories that disagreed with the church, then they would be jailed (or worse), just like Galileo was. These men (no woman BTW) where not interested in the truth, there only interest was in how they could continue to stay in power. So saying that Galileo was being opposed by real scientists, couldn't be further from the truth. I don't guess I need to tell you the rest of the story ;) .

YOUR concret reasons are being CRUSHED with time,as more and more people choose the less travelled road (just like THEO) and show that what was called impossible or irresponsable was nothing more than one more road to success.

No David, this method has not been proven to me. A proven method means it must be replicated many times. One guy (that I don't even personally know) posting on a reef board, does not proove a method. If this is the case David, then there are 100 that could post that this method failed for them.

There's more than one succesful way to creating and stocking a reef. You would have been called crazy if you didnt use an undergravel filter 7-10 years ago in your reef, and you might be called "crazy" if you use them now.

Ah here you go again getting science mixed up with methods. UGF's work great for what they were intended for, I challenge you to disprove this. The science behind UGFs is as solid today as it was 10 years ago.

I guess you are right when you exclude me from the "...We have concret reasons..." sentence, because "I" do not want to be in the group of well known SCIENTISTS that were proven wrong.

Huh? You don't understand that this is what science is all about David??

My beliefs are linked to science and are not based on faith.

They are?? Then why did you just say that you didn't want to be in a group of well known SCIENTISTS then? Scientists look for truth David (provable truth). They are often proven wrong, this just goes with the scientific method. If Theo's method can be replicated using sound scientific testing, then all these supposed "wrong" scientists would be the first to admit their wrong. If Theo's experience was even backed by 25% of the reefing community, then I am sure there would be people sitting up and taking notice.


I think DAVID TQ can explain my point better than I can, but for what is worth, time will tell.

I highly doubt that;) .
Steve

[Theo A]

I'll just stand by and wait for my beautiful tank to self destruct :D
And I'll be sure to post pics every week about how well it's doing too..........

This conversation is like the running in the special olympics, even if you win, you are still retarded.

[cecilturtle]

It is exactly this kind of callous remark that got so many people riled up the first time Theo. You ask for help, then debase someone.

[boogs]

Theo A = Troll.

[Theo A]

I'll simply stop posting about my great, simple, easy approach that has worked for many others, and that will solve the problem.

Easy.

HOWEVER:

Perhaps I've gone about asking in the incorrect way. I'm waiting to hear someone say " Well, because you didn't wait long enought, X element or Y chemical hasn't been depleated, or turned into Z, thus will cause stress and death because fish/coral/invert cant live without Z chemical in the system.

I understand that most people have to start with lifeless synthetic salt, and some LR with decaying matter on it. I understand that it takes time for the biological filters to die, breed, feed, etc...

Did you understand that I took raw rock with TONS of life on it, Natural sea water with TONS of life in it, and live sand with TONS of life in it to start my tank? Since this biological filter was somewhat present when my tank was "born", I attibute it's short cycle and subsequent success thereafter to this.

I realize had I not used these components, I would have had to wait a few weeks/months for the tank to cycle. Adding animals to a tank such as that I can see would be cruel, and not responsable.

What has still not been presented to me, was what I was looking for. The facts about why I need to wait a certin amount of time. What occurs at a 6month period?
What occurs at a 3 month period?
Why does algae all of a sudden bloom in some systems, yet does not in others?

Simple, easy to answer questions that arn't answered, and spun around into making me look like I'm a Cruel and mean reefkeeper :rolleye1:

I seek answers, not arguments.

Tanks need time to mature. What does that mean? Well...it means it takes some time for a body of lifeless water to become filled with life. Initially there are explosions in populations of various organisms from bacteria to pods as the tank slowly comes to equilibrium. Along with this comes chemical stability which helps support the various populations of life in your tank.

Wonderful! I started with NSW, raw rock, and live sand. I wish I could post pictures of all the little critters that are in my tank at the present. Instead I'll attempt to describe them

- halimeda is one that comes to mind
- Yellow encrusting sponge
- Some sort of clear worms, that come from tubes
- Mysis, tons of'em at night
- Bristle worms
- at least 3 minature brittle stars, none that I added
- Snails that I bought have reproduced, or there were 100 minature snails on my LR when I bought it
- Leather that I bought has dubled in size
- Xenia is growing great
- Cleaner shrimp seems to have molted for his third time since I bought him, 4 weeks ago.
- Macro Algae (sargassm?) is growing great
- Some sort of plant/animal, best way to describe it is that it looks like cotton, kind of branchy too. That grows everywhere too.

And a whole bunch of other things I cannot describe.
Does this sound like a tank thats going to crash in the near future? Would everything be growing that well if my params were far off?


Oh yea, you would be AMAZED if you could read the PM's, emails, etc. of people who have done the same thing I have, but simply don't post on this board. They have all asked me to refrain from using there names or content of their writings. THAT in itself was very insiteful.

Group Think is a very negative thing.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by Theo A
I'll simply stop posting about my great, simple, easy approach that has worked for many others, and that will solve the problem.

.....

I realize had I not used these components, I would have had to wait a few weeks/months for the tank to cycle. Adding animals to a tank such as that I can see would be cruel, and not responsable.


If after a year of your tank [and having a good photo or other log of it's progress] you proclaim it worked great - wonderful. But how old is this tank? A few months does not success make, especially when many corals live for years if not decades. I consider a successful tank one that is thriving two or three years down the line ... where all the corals are multiples in size larger and doing well.

Given the long-term nature of the hobby, what is a few weeks? I started with all rock from a FOWLR 3-year-old system and taken-down reef tanks. It didn't cycle - nothing other than almost instant increase/appearance of nitrates.

But lack of cycle does not make a stable bacterial,etc population.

Yes, I had all varieties of bacteria, but it was not an already established tank system that I moved whole to my tank ... it was pieces that were cobbled together. There were all sorts of cool life appearing - but was there stability? Nope, can't have stability in zero time ... just a representative sample.

Your proclaiming that the xenia and leather growing are no great proof - xenia grows like a weed for most people, and leathers are generally tolerant of less-than-perfect conditions more than most other corals. Great starter corals, but not the greatest sign of a healthy tank. Especially if they were both propogated corals ... which are the best way to go for corals, but when small grow very fast. The only `proof' of a healthy tank is time.

No, your tank is not unhealthy, but self-proclaiming your tank as of model health without a photo or great documentation will never get lots of agreement. Perhaps a photo-log would actually get people taking you seriously.

My opinion, of course.

[Theo A]

you asked for it :D


in the beginning:

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/Genisis1.jpg

And 2 weeks later: (when I had no idea about white balance!)


http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/29Gal.jpg

And then a week after that

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/5weeks.JPG


small leather

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/leathersm.jpg

7 weeks after conception

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/7weeks.jpg

[Theo A]

A big shot of some ricordia in my tank:

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/Shrooms 002.jpg

Overall shot 2 weeks ago:

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/overall3.jpg

And 10 weeks after

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/10weeks.jpg

and today, bout 5 mins ago

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/nepthia.jpg

http://www.acceleratedperformance.net/images/7903.jpg

[cecilturtle]

What is that cute little blue fish?

[DavidTQ]

SPC, Steve, I think you are getting your people mixed up John was posting the stuff about Galileo, however you have addressed a few issues that I have spoken about.

As far as science goes this info comes from a marine biologist, who advises both the BBC and the British Government on marine biology and conservation he is one of the worlds foremost authorities on sea horse's and has had several books published, he is also a consultant for europe's largest public aquarium, not some crackpot coming up with strange ideas of how to run tanks, he has used his methods for 20 years.

Also the British Maritime Life Study Society recommends starting a tank with Natural sea water and substrate, and although this is temperate keeping not tropical, the reports of wipe outs and fish deaths there are very few and far between, in fact as few and far between as skimmers are in that branch of the hobby.

I personally know of a few people in this area who use this method with great success year in year out, with regular successfull spawning in their tanks. Maybe it is just something in the water down here, but have you ever wandered how a public aquarium doesnt go through 6 month of maturing their tanks before they introduce an anemone?

Over here our big public aquariums are on the coast and use real sea water and stock immedeatly. The methods are tried and tested, they just havent filtered down because they arent available to everyone.

as far as measurable science goes, I would urge you to look at laboratory analsys of natural seawater versus marine salts. For example -

results of independent research by Dr Craig Bingman and Dr Marlin Atkinson of the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, published in the Journal of Aquariculture and Aquatic Sciences in 1999. Their research compared the chemical
characteristics of a range of aquarium salt mixes to a
control sample of natural seawater.

Reef Crystals from Aquarium Systems

Hawaii Marine Institute’s research: Their research suggested that like the salts on review here, Reef Crystals didn’t produce water of the correct salinity if measured out by weight, being some 6g per litre lower than it should have been.

It came out average in most areas with sodium, magnesium, calcium, calcium carbonate, potassium, strontium, chlorine and sulphur levels all very slightly lower than the levels measured in natural seawater. Only boron was present in greater quantities.

Nutrients were present in greater quantities than in natural seawater, with phosphate levels over 25 times higher, and ammonia levels 39 times higher. The pH of the prepared saltwater was found to be 9.28, the highest measured.

Instant Ocean from Aquarium Systems is a well-established brand with a fairly large following in the USA.

Hawaii Marine Institute’s research: Their research found it to have the lowest levels of inorganic phosphate of any of the salts tested, with just a quarter of the amount found in natural seawater. Nitrate levels were also among the lowest tested, at just five times the amount seen in natural seawater. However, ammonia levels were high (second only to Kent Marine), at about 51 times higher than seawater.

Sodium, magnesium, calcium, calcium carbonate, potassium, chlorine and sodium levels were all slightly lower than natural seawater, but were a little higher than the concentrations measured in the Tropic Marin. Strontium and boron levels were a little higher.

The composition was broadly similar to that of Reef Crystals, with the only marked differences being a little more strontium and ammonia in the Instant Ocean, and a little more phosphate and nitrate in the Reef Crystals. It mixed to a good pH at around 8.35.

Tropic Marin salt, distributed by Tropical Marine Centre (TMC), is one of the most popular and widely used salts in the UK with a reputation for producing good quality water at a consistently high standard between different batches.

It’s made from the highest grade pharmaceutical grade ingredients which include over 70 trace elements. Interestingly, these are added to the salt as ‘solid solutions’, which means that unlike other salts, they shouldn’t precipitate when the salt is dissolved. It’s guaranteed to be free of nitrate and phosphate.

Hawaii Marine Institute’s research: Tropic Marin came out top for producing water with the salinity closest to natural seawater, suggesting that it contains less hydrated chemicals than other marine salts and making it one of the best salts to purchase weight for weight.

The independent research showed sodium, magnesium, calcium, calcium carbonate, chlorine, boron and potassium levels were all close to the levels found in seawater. However, organic phosphate concentrations were the highest at around six times that seen in natural seawater at the time of the tests, but by contrast, silicate levels were among the lowest. Nitrate levels, although some 11 times higher than those seen in natural seawater, are about average among the salts on review here. And at just two to three times higher, ammonia levels were one of the lowest recorded. At 8.9, it was found to mix to a rather high pH.

Kent Marine salt is often available at very competitive prices, and has a pretty good reputation for quality and reliability, so it’s little wonder that it’s becoming more popular in the UK. It contains additional calcium, strontium, iodine and trace elements, which means that it’s one of the best salts to use if you use demineralised water, like RO.

Hawaii Marine Institute’s research: Kent Marine salt came out well with magnesium, calcium, calcium carbonate, strontium and boron all present at levels slightly above those found in natural seawater. Similarly, calcium and buffering levels were the highest seen in any salt. Sodium, potassium and chlorine levels were all slightly lower than in natural seawater.

In these independent tests nitrate levels were found to be 10 times higher than the level found in natural seawater, which is about the norm, and ammonia levels were nearly 60 times higher, which is rather high.

It may contain more hydrated chemicals than some of the other salts here, because 35g produced a salinity of around 28.85ppt – one of the lowest found, which means that by weight it doesn’t go as far as some other salts on review here. It mixed to a pH of 8.08 – the lowest recorded in the independent analyses.

Seachem Reefsalt

Hawaii Marine Institute’s research: Seachem scored quite well for calcium in the Hawaii Marine Institute tests. The calcium carbonate, magnesium and chlorine levels were the lowest recorded, and the buffering capacity was also rather low compared to the other salts in Hawaii’s analyses.

At over 90 times greater than the concentration found in natural seawater, nitrate levels were by far the highest recorded in the independent tests.

However, ammonia levels were among the lowest. At 8.81, the pH was rather high. On the plus side, sodium, potassium, strontium, sulphur and boron all scored particularly well – almost matching the levels seen in natural seawater.

Red Sea Salt

oral Reef Red Sea Salt is made largely from natural salt, rather than from laboratory mixtures of the constituent chemicals. Red Sea claim that in their tests, this results in a significant difference in coral growth over pharmaceutical grade salts.

Contrary to popular belief, it’s not a by-product of desalination plants. It is produced in Israel especially for the aquarium trade. It has some trace elements added to enable it to produce water of the correct composition.

Hawaii Marine Institute’s research: In the independent tests, Red Sea salt came second only to Tropic Marin for producing water of the desired salinity, but it was still around 5ppt (grams per litre) lower than it should’ve been at a little under 30ppt.

Sodium, magnesium, strontium and boron levels exceeded that found in natural seawater, and all other levels were fairly close to those seen in nature. Calcium carbonate levels, however, were the second lowest recorded.
Nutrient wise, Red Sea salt was found to be particularly good, scoring very well for phosphate, nitrate and ammonia. It mixed to a pH of 8.69.

So the water you mix up and put in your tank has scientifically measurable levels of pollutants in it, which are far higher than those found in natural sea water, if anything is going to lead to a more unstable tank that will be a contributor.

Also plankton populations for NSW are far higher than for a skimmed synthetic sea water tank. If you want to find the difference between the two I will do a google search for you. I could also find enough scientific papers explaining the importance of plankton populations for coral growth and water stability.

As Theo has already stated he has plenty of mysis (although I would suspect it may actually be copepods) in his tank, these take a long time to build up in the synthetic tank, but gathered from the ocean you have a ready matured population. The presence of these organisms, is what is needed for the survival of mandarins and butterflies etc, and it is building up these in a synthetic aquarium that takes the 6 months.

Using Natural resources such as this gives you the situation you are in after 6 months with a well maintained synthetic tank. There is no magic ingredient added which suddenly appears 6 months after you set up any tank. The only thing that does need to develop are the filter bacteria, but if the tank is already 3 months old and not showing measurable ammonia or nitrate (on home test kits) then this population is also good enough.

Do I have to find scientific papers from respected source for every point I have made to backup what I was told by a respectable scientist? or can we use common sense to understand the difference in maturity between synthetic tanks and natural systems?

David

[Theo A]

THAT was great information David!

- no measurable Ni or Na since 3 days after starting my tank.
When I move, I've taking 55gal barrels of NSW with me :)

[DavidTQ]

One thing to be cautious with with NSW is that it does not store, I use mine within 20 mins or so of collecting, but within a few hours is fine, but much longer than a day and all the good life you are bringing in will start to die, if you are gonna store sea waer you need to store it for at least 3 months in sealed dark containers, I've taken ammonia reading which are off he chart on water stored for 3 weeks :) Its the very best there is and it doesnt pollute the tank, but it needs adding immedeatly. If you are moving soon and want to take sea water with you, collect it and store it now and make sure you test it very thorougly before use.

Cecil - you know full well as does theo what that cute little blue fish is, and theo has already stated he has a bigger tank for it as it grows up. :)

David

[JohnsReef]

Cheeze Dave,
You really did it! You have proven my point way better I could have done it. Thank you again for your post!
Middleton, this method (as David said) has been proven with time, over and over again, (it is a fact). Every single person that walks into my store has started their LONG kept tanks, this way. We are talking 1000's. I guess the reason is not so popular (as David said) is that people like you (living in Winsconsin) don't have access to it so easily as "WE" (coastal people) do.Sorry that your "scientific" mind has "Blinded" you from an overwhelming thruth, and I'm sorry geography has stopped you from learning other methods. I guess we could make this an never-ending thread, but honestly, points and ways to do it, have been explained on both sides and both have been proven to work. I guess it is mostly a matter of geography. Why don't you move down to Daytona Beach? People here can cycle tanks, and make them stable in a fraction of the time with all NATURAL components. ;)

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by JohnsReef
Middleton, this method (as David said) has been proven with time, over and over again, (it is a fact). Every single person that walks into my store has started their LONG kept tanks, this way. We are talking 1000's. I guess the reason is not so popular (as David said) is that people like you (living in Winsconsin) don't have access to it so easily as "WE" (coastal people) do.Sorry that your "scientific" mind has "Blinded" you from an overwhelming thruth, and I'm sorry geography has stopped you from learning other methods.

Wow, your smug, condescending attitude really convinced me.

I now know why I don't hear this written up anywhere in any books; because it is so overwhelming of evidence that no one feels the need to write it up.

I guess my scientific mind has made me blind, that I must be `over-responsible' for giving my tank [all rock from previous long-established tanks] a few weeks just to stabilize. How silly of me to be cautious with reef creatures when I can just rush a probably nothing bad would happen. And what's the big deal if you kill a couple of creatures just to rush things? They always say `only bad things happen slow in a reef tank, good things always happen fast.'

Sorry if I value these lives in my tank and have learned to develop patience. Guess those are two things that must be found only inland.

[DavidTQ]

Hey Middleton Mark calm down a bit, there are a lot of people getting upset here and using fighting put down talk, people dont like what they know works for them being bashed whether it is someone using UG filters and an air pump or someone running a national aquarium.

You made an interesting poin about giving your tanks a few weeks to stabilise when using rocks from existing tanks, if I had to use syntheticwater I'd do the same. If youa re anything like me and normally have lots of tanks on the go, have you ever set up a smaller tank using established water, rocks and filters from another tank and immedeatly added a light stocking? That is what this is akin to, this guy didnt bung everything in there on day 1 he has added stuff slowly over time his tank is far from over stocked (at current size).

People have asked for scientific reasoning behind NSW I have given one piece, so far there are many more science papers done by universitys and marine biology labs, and even the resident Ron Shimek about the advantages of biodiversity and maturity of NSW. Im sure you noticed the lenght of my last post I dont wish to have to post 5 screens of papers to prove what should be able to be seen just from logic.

David

[Flanders]

Middleton, this method (as David said) has been proven with time, over and over again, (it is a fact). Every single person that walks into my store has started their LONG kept tanks, this way. We are talking 1000's. I guess the reason is not so popular (as David said) is that people like you (living in Winsconsin) don't have access to it so easily as "WE" (coastal people) do.Sorry that your "scientific" mind has "Blinded" you from an overwhelming thruth, and I'm sorry geography has stopped you from learning other methods. I guess we could make this an never-ending thread, but honestly, points and ways to do it, have been explained on both sides and both have been proven to work. I guess it is mostly a matter of geography. Why don't you move down to Daytona Beach? People here can cycle tanks, and make them stable in a fraction of the time with all NATURAL components.

Jeez, you'd think living near the ocean would be relaxing, but it seems to have turned you into kind of a jerk. What's with the attitude? I bet it's really fun to shop in your store. :rolleyes:

I think you would make a much better point without the attitude. And "we" (landlubbers) consider NSW to be cheating by the way, and "we"re not impressed by any success "you" have with it. :lol:

[SPC]

Originally posted by DavidTQ
SPC, Steve, I think you are getting your people mixed up John was posting the stuff about Galileo, however you have addressed a few issues that I have spoken about.

Sorry David, I did mix the names up but can assure you that I did not mix up the posters and their message.

As far as science goes this info comes from a marine biologist, who advises both the BBC and the British Government on marine biology and conservation he is one of the worlds foremost authorities on sea horse's and has had several books published, he is also a consultant for europe's largest public aquarium, not some crackpot coming up with strange ideas of how to run tanks, he has used his methods for 20 years.

And his name is? Does this guy recommend that sea horses can be added to a NSW aquarium immediately? What do the authorities on Sea Horse.org think about this mathod?

Also the British Maritime Life Study Society recommends starting a tank with Natural sea water and substrate, and although this is temperate keeping not tropical, the reports of wipe outs and fish deaths there are very few and far between, in fact as few and far between as skimmers are in that branch of the hobby.

No one has said that one cannot start a tank with NSW David, or even that it may not be better than synthetic "initially".

Are you saying that the British Maritime Life Study Society does not believe in the use of skimmers? Do they use closed systems?

I personally know of a few people in this area who use this method with great success year in year out, with regular successfull spawning in their tanks. Maybe it is just something in the water down here, but have you ever wandered how a public aquarium doesnt go through 6 month of maturing their tanks before they introduce an anemone?

This would depend on which public aquarium we are speaking of. Some have open flow through systems that can hardly be compared to a small glass box. Some I have read go through many animals simply replacing them when they die. Do any of us know, for a fact, the mortality rates of the animals in these systems David? Do you know what they use for filtration, huge protein skimmers? Huge sand filters (possibly used before the NSW is introduced to the system)?

Over here our big public aquariums are on the coast and use real sea water and stock immedeatly. The methods are tried and tested, they just havent filtered down because they arent available to everyone.

Ah there it is, flow through system. No one has argued that a flow through system, or for that matter a system that contains huge amounts of water, is not going to be different than a tiny glass box of water which is a closed system. Are you trying to make the point that 50,000 gallons of water can be compared to 29 gallons after animals are introduced?

as far as measurable science goes, I would urge you to look at laboratory analsys of natural seawater versus marine salts. For example -

Thanks David, everyone has already read that report years ago, in fact many of us have spent hours discussing that analysis as well as others. Again, no one is saying that NSW is not better than synthetic. Our point deals with tiny little aqauriums and the biological processes that take place in them. You could start out with the most pristine NSW known to man if you like, but will end up with something quite different once animals are introduced to the mix. Do you see the difference here?

Would you like for me to post a link to Dr Rons recent water analysis showing that NSW tanks were close to some synthetic mixes at supporting the hatching of urchin larvae? I can also post a link to a study done by Dr Ron comparing various chemicals, in many different aquarium waters (including some NSW tanks), if you would like. This study may be debated (as well they should if we are discussing science) but they at least try and compare real hobbyist aquarium situations.

So the water you mix up and put in your tank has scientifically measurable levels of pollutants in it, which are far higher than those found in natural sea water, if anything is going to lead to a more unstable tank that will be a contributor.

Yes I agree, it may lead to a more unstable tank, but more is a relative term when discussing reef animals. Have you any links to analysis done on 29 gallon closed system NSW tanks after two weeks? Do you think the gap between NSW and synthetic at this point would have shrunk a bit? The study done by Dr Ron is the closest analysis I have seen (although I disagree with the way some of this test was performed) to comparing aged, in an aquarium situation, NSW vs synthetic.

Also plankton populations for NSW are far higher than for a skimmed synthetic sea water tank. If you want to find the difference between the two I will do a google search for you. I could also find enough scientific papers explaining the importance of plankton populations for coral growth and water stability.

You do realize that plankton populations vary within different areas of the ocean don't you David? The amount of plankton one would normaly get in 50 gallons of water wouldn't amount to squat IMO. The plankton one would introduce would soon be consumed, die during transportation (adding organics to the little box of water) or be pulled out by the skimmer, mechanical filtrtion etc....

Do you know if the public aquariums you spoke of earlier pre treat their NSW? Do you know if they run it through a micron filter or use UV to kill this supposed "good" plankton?

As Theo has already stated he has plenty of mysis (although I would suspect it may actually be copepods) in his tank, these take a long time to build up in the synthetic tank, but gathered from the ocean you have a ready matured population. The presence of these organisms, is what is needed for the survival of mandarins and butterflies etc, and it is building up these in a synthetic aquarium that takes the 6 months.

Yes this is part of what a mandarin needs (I don't understand the butterfly fish however, do you know of a butterfly that requires live copepods to survive?). This initial introduction of mysis and copepods means nothing however if the tank becomes unstable after introduction of other animals to the system.

Using Natural resources such as this gives you the situation you are in after 6 months with a well maintained synthetic tank. There is no magic ingredient added which suddenly appears 6 months after you set up any tank. The only thing that does need to develop are the filter bacteria, but if the tank is already 3 months old and not showing measurable ammonia or nitrate (on home test kits) then this population is also good enough.

Ammonia and nitrate do not show up on my synthetic tanks after 3 months either David. You do know that there are other processes going on besides these in a tank don't you?

Do I have to find scientific papers from respected source for every point I have made to backup what I was told by a respectable scientist? or can we use common sense to understand the difference in maturity between synthetic tanks and natural systems?

Thats what some of us have been trying to do David, use common sense. My common sense tells me that 29 gallons of any water will not be the same after a 2 week period has elapsed. So I guess you will have to show me where this respectable scientist has performed these studies on small aquariums that contain the same (or close) biological load that Theo has. Please include all peer reviews with any of these studies too.

Again, no one is saying that "clean" NSW is not the better choice to use in our tanks. The point that is being made is that this NSW is not much different from synthetic once animals have been added to the tank.
Steve

[SPC]

Originally posted by DavidTQ
Hey Middleton Mark calm down a bit, there are a lot of people getting upset here and using fighting put down talk,

I don't think I would go as far as "a lot" of prople David ;) .

and even the resident Ron Shimek about the advantages of biodiversity and maturity of NSW.

Again, maturity and biodiversity of NSW when its located in the ocean is not what is being discussed, David. Ron Shimek showed the difference through his analysis of various aquarium water.
Steve

[kazzoo3]

Boy, egos are both wonderful and terrible!

John, from how close to shore do you collect your water?

BTW, what is Tang police?

[Mojoreef]

Wow what a long thread. I have gone through it and to me it seems that both sides are kinda talking about different things. The use of NSW is a great thing and better then the use of ASW, I think most folks would agree to this (yes they bnoth have ups and downs but still).
When setting up a tank with ASW or NSW either way is fine. The NSW will have a better edge in this race. Although after a few weeks I would say this edge has quickly disappeared. The reef tank will begin to settle into its own little artifical ecosystem. You will go through algae blooms (based on available nutrients and water quality), you will go through critter blooms based on the timeing of the enviroment and what is happening to it. If you run a sandy substraight this will also be in a state of flux for a period of time until it reaches a point to where it balances out. All of these things will create ups and downs( for lack of a better term).
The above would be the biological fluxing of our new tanks. Then comes the dummy moves that we cause. It takes a bit of time to nail down the heat and chill factors we need to make our tank stable. it also take a bit of time to figure out what the chemical needs of our tanks are (as in what does our bioload need in regards to alk, cal, mag and so on). Lighting break in and a host of other things required.
I think we can all agree that the animals we try to keep are at worse used to a pretty stable enviroment, yes they may spend half thier time in a tide pool and then the other half 20 feet down, but it is an enviroment that they are used to and that happens consistantly to them over thier life spans (even inherited).
When we talk about mature tanks in this hobby we are basically talking about all of the above being taken care of, so that it provides a stable enviroment for our critters to live and thrive in. If someone jumps the gun of introducing an animal that is not used to these fluxes they run a good chance of killing the animals. Now some animals are a little more hardy and can survive these fluxes, most do not.
Now in saying that taking a seahorse and putting it in a bowl/tank of water with NSW or even a fish, is not the same as creating a reef tank. The SH or fish in a tank of water can be keep by simply making sue the water is replaced when it gets polluted, thier is really nothing else to a setup like this. In a reef tank type set up thier is far more that is living in thier and creating it own cycles (ie: nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle, iron cycle and so on and so on, never mind the bacterial cycling going on) So comparing these system types in not a good idea.
I am not sure about the public Aquarium mentioned, but all the ones that I have toured or worked on, UV thier NSW and then sand filter and micron bag it. The majority of Plankton coming into the aquarium is Phytoplankton and its oxygen supply is great which usually meanss that if stored to long it will strip the water of oxygen (and create a ton of CO2) this will cause it to die and thus pollute the water (this of coarse does not apply to open systems).

anyway have fun folks.

Mike

[naesco]

Originally posted by kazzoo3
Boy, egos are both wonderful and terrible!

John, from how close to shore do you collect your water?

BTW, what is Tang police?


The tang police is a group of reefers experienced with keeping tangs and are there to advise and assist new reefers on the optimum requirements for keeping tangs.:)

[JohnsReef]

No problem John, as long as we continue to discuss the subject in an adult manner, then I see no reason to take offence at anything you say.

Smug? what is a smug? Is it an insult??Whatever happen to adult manner?
:confused:

[JohnsReef]

I didn't mean to make it sound like people that are living near the coast or their ways are better than anyone elses. I just meant that our experiences here have proven successful, because the organisms on the rocks can reproduce more quickly and to their fullest extent in a shorter amount of time with natural sea water. What works for you works for you and what works for me works for me. I am sorry if it sounded like I was putting anyone down, I didn't mean to. With English not as my first language, sometimes it is hard to get my point across without sounding rude. At times i rely on my girlfriend's translation on an idea of mind so people won't have as much trouble intrepreting it. As a matter of fact she is helping me on this post so I can write without sounding like I have an attitude. I don't have an attitude to anyone. Sorry again.
Keep Reefing Your Way as long as it works!!

[MiddletonMark]

Good to hear.

I still agree to disagree - while NSW may have good things when first introduced to the tank; this is not a self-supporting population. I can add all the phytoplankton [live, cultured in my basement] to my tank - but yet within a day it's all gone or essentially so. Why? Because my tank is not the full ocean ecosystem. Everything is there for the phyto to really take off ... much `better' situation [more light, nutrients] than my culturing bottles ... but all these things fade in relatively quick time because it's is not an open system.

I think this NSW vs. ASW discussion is lacking in that point - most of the ASW users are well aware that it is a closed system and thus we may be over-cautious; but it sounds as if the NSW users argue like they have an open system - plumbed direct to the ocean with sustaining populations of these organisms constantly reproducing. While I'm not arguing that NSW isn't a great way to go - I'd still think that most of the things added with NSW to a tank have a limited shelf-life there. A great way of introducing things to your tank ... but not instant-stability of these organisms and likely far from it.

I'm saying that one cannot immediately stock a new tank filled with NSW for that point - that you do not have a self-sustaining population of anything in the first days of running a tank.

Enough water changes and I think anyone could `stock' a tank provided rock that wasn't having major decay and cycling going on. I'd still say that's not a good way as the 'pods and micro-plankton organisms have exponential growth rates - meaning that the first month or so despite how many were stocked they do not have significant population growth until their population grows to a certain level. You may be replacing a few with NSW, but given the number of consumers in a tank and limited water volume - that replacement doesn't go very far.

It's the same logic as why you need a year old or so tank to keep a mandarin. Fish that eat 'pods can quickly decimate a population; that you need massive populations of these critters to have a truly self-sustaining population living in your rocks once something that consumes them is introduced. I've seen it happen. Unless you have a major culturing station for 'pods going on - they need that saturation to really have a viable population. I doubt NSW is that saturated with pods and other things to replace those eaten unless you are doing nearly daily water changes - or an open system.

---

I'm happy to discuss this further and keep the ideas rolling, let's just keep it polite. We're arguing ideas, not against people.

[DavidTQ]

Steve

And his name is? Does this guy recommend that sea horses can be added to a NSW aquarium immediately? What do the authorities on Sea Horse.org think about this mathod?

I shall post his name if I get his permission, as he does not seem like the type to falsh his name around as a trademark. I am speaking to him this weekend, however I note that he is amongst there recommended authors. Yes he does recommend that sea horses can be added to a NSW aquariujm immeadeatly, on the condition that the substrate and rocks etc etc are also direct from the sea, as he runs europes biggest sea horse conservation centre and captive breeding program I would say he know a tad more about keeping sea horses responsibly than you or I.

Are you saying that the British Maritime Life Study Society does not believe in the use of skimmers? Do they use closed systems?

Correct They do not believe in the use of skimmers, and they do run semi closed systems (these tanks do stay in contact with the sea through regular water changes - it should be noted that the sea is also a closed system, with the sun as its set of halides and the rain as its top up - we do not claim to have a complete biotope, but a MORE complete biotope that works very well), they have found through many years of experience that certain anemones and crabs can not be kept alive with a skimmers in the tank and also that in a NSW aquarium filter feeders etc fair far better without a skimmer, it is also vital for the raising of marine fish young that no skimming takes place in a tank. Yes we do captive breed SW fish here. I would say that seeing as we have a record for an anemone living in captivity for 50 years in - wow a NSW tank without a skimmer! We also have regular Anemone spawnings, I am currently growing on about 40 baby anemone's to pass on to the hobby, guess what in an unskimmed tank. It is also well documnted that skimmers take out certain minerals which are needed for proper moulting of crabs. The only time that skimming is recommended is in a non reproductive tank keeping cuttlefish and octopi.


You do realize that plankton populations vary within different areas of the ocean don't you David? The amount of plankton one would normaly get in 50 gallons of water wouldn't amount to squat IMO. The plankton one would introduce would soon be consumed, die during transportation (adding organics to the little box of water) or be pulled out by the skimmer, mechanical filtrtion etc....

Do you know if the public aquariums you spoke of earlier pre treat their NSW? Do you know if they run it through a micron filter or use UV to kill this supposed "good" plankton?

Yes I am well aware that plankton populations vary, but the amount of plankton in 50 gallons amounting "squat" is very very false, the plankton do die in transport but only if stored for a long time, in my tank I can guarantee that my plankton populations are higher than in any skimmed tanks. Plankton reproduce at very fast rates, and will establish a population that can be sustained with the available food source (providing they are not constantly killed by a skimmer),

from a review of the monaco aquarium :-

Skimming
>The quality of the water in this series demonstrates that the Jaubert system, in combination with regular water changes, is capable of supporting complete mineralisation, nitrification and
denitrification processes without the need of protein skimming.
>Powerful protein skimming has the disadvantage of stripping the water of various elements such as plankton-based material, together with important nutrients like iodine and trace elements essential for the balance of a coral reef aquarium. It would seem that the advantages gained from the refugium true food web approach used for this series of tanks considerably outweigh the disadvantages of not using powerful skimming action.

The tank in question is not so far from home tank volumes it is 2378 litres incl Sump, which is just over double the size of the one I am currently setting up, however I will supporting less than half the amount of life in the tank.

Another review of an unskimmed tank -

http://www.ecosystemaquarium.com/html/greatReefTanks/greatReefTanks_pg1.html

it says a lot about the benefits of diversity and plankton populations in an unskimmed tank.

Methods vary for unskimmed tanks, but the benefits are there for the world to see, my own system at the moment is based on the ecosystems model, but plenty of people are running with macro algae in their main tank to deal with nitrate export and relying on regular water changes for mineral balance and added biodiversity (water will contain different larvae and plankton at different times of the year)

Yes this is part of what a mandarin needs (I don't understand the butterfly fish however, do you know of a butterfly that requires live copepods to survive?). This initial introduction of mysis and copepods means nothing however if the tank becomes unstable after introduction of other animals to the system.


The Caribean Big Long Nosed butterfly Forcipger longirostris, although it will survive on live \ frozen brine shrimp, this is not a good enough diet for a long and healthy life, it is recommended by many sources that it should only be added to a tank with healthy and varied population of pods, for it to hunt and eat (that is what that long nose is for - getting into nooks and crannys and digging out pods)

s would depend on which public aquarium we are speaking of. Some have open flow through systems that can hardly be compared to a small glass box. Some I have read go through many animals simply replacing them when they die. Do any of us know, for a fact, the mortality rates of the animals in these systems David? Do you know what they use for filtration, huge protein skimmers? Huge sand filters (possibly used before the NSW is introduced to the system)?

The National Marine Aquarium DO skim their water, they dont however have a complete flow through system due to the difference in temperature and the chances of shipping pollution etc in the water outside, they do however carry out slow water change as and when conditions are ok to do so (being as they are right at the entrance to a major naval harbour they have to take precautions) I would say though however that this is directly comaparable to Theo's skimmed NSW tank with regular good water changes.

As far as doubting the integrity and knowledge aquarium and dedicated proffesionals perhaps you would like to reveal your qualifications and experience in the hobby in this thread, I personally will listen to a marine biologist who has dedicated his life to marine conservation with plenty of proof of his success, over a fellow hobbyist with 10 years experience of a completely different type of setup.

I have already stated that the marine biologist I was speaking of, he has over 50 seahorse tanks started inthe manner that has been described, and he breeds and studies these animals, he does not suffer deaths, he does not have ill fish, he knows far more about sea horse's and the caring for them, than I do,(or unless revealed otherwise) you do. He also has been succesfully keeping Reef tanks for 20 years, something not many here can boast, he was using live rock and NSW 20 years ago and still suceeds without skimming.

from the national aquariums website stating their stance on conservation:-

National Marine Aquarium was the first aquarium in the United Kingdom to be set up solely for the purpose of education, conservation and research. It remains Britain's foremost aquarium

The National Marine Aquarium is one of the few aquariums that has produced a conservation policy that includes guidelines for how we get our animals.

Where possible, we obtain them from existing captive stocks such as other aquariums or fish farms.

In turn, any excess 'stock' that we might have through captive breeding is passed on the other aquariums. Sometimes we obtain animals or plants from reputable suppliers, but we seek to ensure that all specimens have been obtained form captive stock or from a sustainable wild source.

Where specimens are taken directly from the wild, collecting is done with minimal intrusion and no lasting damage to the environment.

We never collect from protected areas such as nature reserves or sanctuaries, unless part of a scientific programme

On the rare occasion when a fish needs treatment, it is gently corralled into a holding tank from where it is transferred to quarantine.

If necessary, a specialist vet is called in for further treatments.

We pride ourselves on the condition of our animals and take every care to ensure they live a long and healthy life.

One sign that we get this right is the longevity of the animals, another is that they feel secure enough to breed.

Many species have now bred in the Aquarium, an event which is especially pleasing when it is a rare species that succeeds.


Perhaps this is all lies and bumpf, but what are YOUR qualifications to argue with them or disprove their ways?

Sorry if this section sounds immflamatory, I am trying to establish your level of knowledge, I have no doubt you are more experienced and knowledgable than me in reef keeping, but I doubt that you are knowledgable enought to challenge the people who's advice I go by. I did take mild offense at your tone suggesting these people are irresponsible and killing animals en masse.

Ah there it is, flow through system. No one has argued that a flow through system, or for that matter a system that contains huge amounts of water, is not going to be different than a tiny glass box of water which is a closed system. Are you trying to make the point that 50,000 gallons of water can be compared to 29 gallons after animals are introduced?

Actually its not a flow through system, the water is held in the system's (not all interconnected) and heated (being as our local water is 12c which is a little chilly for reefs. They carry out (as in common with the monaco aquarium) continual slow water change, but this is simply because that is easier than draining 20% of every tank and refilling it every couple of weeks, this therefore is directly comparable to keeping things in a NSW box and doing water changes, I dont doubt they change a far higher percentage water change than I do, but I am not keeping turtles etc, I like to understock my tanks.


Would you like for me to post a link to Dr Rons recent water analysis showing that NSW tanks were close to some synthetic mixes at supporting the hatching of urchin larvae? I can also post a link to a study done by Dr Ron comparing various chemicals, in many different aquarium waters (including some NSW tanks), if you would like. This study may be debated (as well they should if we are discussing science) but they at least try and compare real hobbyist aquarium situations.

Very much so, I look forward to reading everything I can get my hands on, you can never have to much knowledge. I would also like very much to carry out some scientific studies based on the methods of which we have been discussing.

Yes I agree, it may lead to a more unstable tank, but more is a relative term when discussing reef animals. Have you any links to analysis done on 29 gallon closed system NSW tanks after two weeks? Do you think the gap between NSW and synthetic at this point would have shrunk a bit? The study done by Dr Ron is the closest analysis I have seen (although I disagree with the way some of this test was performed) to comparing aged, in an aquarium situation, NSW vs synthetic.

Well I havent any links to scientific data only hobbyist data for small tanks, however I may well have a word with my friendly marine biologist and see if he has any details on plankton counts and diversity in his closed (see notes above on closedness of systems) systems, which he has been running for many years. As for the differences between Theo's tanks and a synthetic setup after a few weeks, there is a big difference because his is not only NSW but also live pod populations living rock etc straight from the ocean, no dieing and recuring involved,he has stated his huge populations this would not be the case with a setup that new using a synthetic setup and materials from the LFS, there is more than just the water to this equation.

Ammonia and nitrate do not show up on my synthetic tanks after 3 months either David. You do know that there are other processes going on besides these in a tank don't you?

No they should not show up in any tank after 3 months, the point I was making was that his have not been showing since 3 days, and the fact that they are staying indetectable means that at least the filter bacteria are coping with the load and so he has not bee irresponsibly stocking his tank as far as the filter bacteria go (lets face it ammonia and nitrate are still big killers in many tanks)

Thats what some of us have been trying to do David, use common sense. My common sense tells me that 29 gallons of any water will not be the same after a 2 week period has elapsed. So I guess you will have to show me where this respectable scientist has performed these studies on small aquariums that contain the same (or close) biological load that Theo has. Please include all peer reviews with any of these studies too.

Again, no one is saying that "clean" NSW is not the better choice to use in our tanks. The point that is being made is that this NSW is not much different from synthetic once animals have been added to the tank.

Indeed you would not want the water to be the same after 2 weeks, the life in the tank will adjust and find balance with its bioload, using NSW and natural life and rocks etc etc, will help immensely with this due to the diversity of life found therein, however these same changes have to occur when any new stock is added to any tank, I do not feel that Theo has been irresponsible in the time take to build up his population, Certainly I dont agree with everything he has done, but I believe that with a healthy amount of life already in the tank and good clean water I dont see why he shouldnt have success, I would suspect if he is moving and losing his ready supply of fresh NSW then he is going to come across problems.

If there is a specific inadequacy that you are expecting to come up in the tank please tell Theo about it so that he can monitor it.

Mike

You will go through algae blooms (based on available nutrients and water quality), you will go through critter blooms based on the timeing of the enviroment and what is happening to it. If you run a sandy substraight this will also be in a state of flux for a period of time until it reaches a point to where it balances out. All of these things will create ups and downs( for lack of a better term).
The above would be the biological fluxing of our new tanks. Then comes the dummy moves that we cause. It takes a bit of time to nail down the heat and chill factors we need to make our tank stable. it also take a bit of time to figure out what the chemical needs of our tanks are (as in what does our bioload need in regards to alk, cal, mag and so on). Lighting break in and a host of other things required.
I think we can all agree that the animals we try to keep are at worse used to a pretty stable enviroment

The algal blooms I know happen, but I have yet to see them cause a problem for tank occupants, indeed the bloom of algae is one of natures ways of dealing with instability and does happen in nature and can rehappen if a well established tank becomes unsettled. As for critter blooms, he is already helping with that with a live population.

Dummy moves - Oh yes, agree with you 100% on that one, biggest killer - the keeper monkeying around, There's two big killers in tanks too much messing around in a tank and not enough maintenance. Theo as far as I can see is dealing with his alk, cal, mag etc in the safest way possible by using NSW in his water changes, plenty of water changes using that will keep the tank far more balanced than adding elements and compensating for elements lost through skimming or consumer by occupants, regular water changes are the key to success with a NSW tank.

When we talk about mature tanks in this hobby we are basically talking about all of the above being taken care of, so that it provides a stable enviroment for our critters to live and thrive in. If someone jumps the gun of introducing an animal that is not used to these fluxes they run a good chance of killing the animals. Now some animals are a little more hardy and can survive these fluxes, most do not.

I think a lot of this flux is taken care of very early on when the tank is setting up using NSW and afterwards condition changes are minimalised by adding fresh NSW (from a nice stable source)

Now in saying that taking a seahorse and putting it in a bowl/tank of water with NSW or even a fish, is not the same as creating a reef tank. The SH or fish in a tank of water can be keep by simply making sue the water is replaced when it gets polluted, thier is really nothing else to a setup like this. In a reef tank type set up thier is far more that is living in thier and creating it own cycles (ie: nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle, iron cycle and so on and so on, never mind the bacterial cycling going on) So comparing these system types in not a good idea.

I would agree that keeping fish only (whatever type), is completely different to a full reef tank, however I would say that Theo is not stocking as fast as putting complete bioload in his tank on day 1, It is the diversity rather than the fish that appeals to me more in a reef tank, However I would say that a reef tank set up can still be accelerated by using NSW, and by continued use of nSW you are greatly helping the stability of the tank, because the chances of over dosing elements etc are greatly reduced, I believe that the more diversity in tank the more stable the system is going to be, One of my desires is to set up a self maintained biotope tank, where all I have to do is add heat and light and pure water, and let the system feed itself and adapt itself to its inhabitants. Allowing the recylcing of elements through natural life cycles etc to keep things flowing through the tank, a sealed system a mini ocean, I believe it is possible, but the key is to remember the basics and that would mean keeping down the number of high level occupants in the tank, for example maybe a pair of clowns in a 1000l tank with good stocks of other life forms the more diversity the better, populations of everything will find their own balance.

David

[Theo A]

And now I'm going to REALLY turn heads by telling you:

I've never changed my water once since adding the NSW. Only top off R/o and kalk.

Ni - Zip
Na - zero

[DavidTQ]

On that one there is a problem, as your corals etc grow they will strip the calcium (even soft corals) and OTHER minerals from the water, as there is a limited amount of elements in the water, the thing which I would keep a close eye on is you ph levels, if you arent doing regular NSW water changes these levels will be affected, have you got calcium test etc there, I'd keep a close eye on those if you arent doing water changes, otherwise SPC could be right and that will be what leads to your tank crash. CA should be around 350-400, if it isnt, Id get your water changes going, if your life cant get the minerals it needs from the water its gonna cause problems, having a calcium based substrate isnt going to to much for your CA levels either - by the time PH reaches the point where that is entering the water in usefull levels you will have lost most of your stock, just a helpful hint check your element levels, if all is still fine - even I will be amazed :) if not dont worry there's still time to correct things, but your livestock wont like big swings. Perhaps if you post you CA results here, after 10 weeks I would expect to see some drop in ca levels.

David

[MiddletonMark]

Well, Theo, you've now completely distanced yourself from David's arguments.

Not sure if David's arguments are fully correct without substantiation; and I know of a number of highly successful aquariums that do things differently than he described [skimmers, ASW ... such as the Shedd which I'm visiting tomorrow]. I'll be asking about how they manage the many rare varieties of seahorses they have there with ASW - some that I understand are not kept successfully in other aquaria. I'd also be very interested to read more from this scientist David keep quoting. You'd think with that kind of success he'd be happy to get this information out.

But Theo, David was talking about skimmerless systems that have a regular [and fairly high volume] water change system with NSW. Both skimming and time will remove the beneficial micro-life that NSW adds to a system ... never mind over time all useful elements [calcium, among others] will be depleted in such a system without supplementation. Without regular NSW changes, it becomes a truly closed system - which isn't what David was talking about - his was `semi-closed' and given the high volume of water renewal, I would say about as close to `open' as one can get without having your tank in the ocean.

[DavidTQ]

ASW and skimmers, do work they help keep many of the creatures in the aquarium alive, that is a fact I do not dispute that :) The fact is that live rock backed up by a skimmer is a staple of the marine keeping world. what I will say is that it is also becoming widely recognised that skimmerless systems can be particularly beneficial, for example plenums (for those who get them setup right) miracle mud etc, Ron Shimek has pointed out that some sponges and filter feeders do thrive better with higher plakton poulations. It has also been found out through many years of trial over here that certain species are impossible to keep in a skimmed tank. I also believe that these unskimmed less closed environments will be the key to hobbyist breeding success, the day when our hobby will be far less damaging to natural world.

I would also be very interested in any info you have on those difficult sea horse's species etc, I believe what is generally considered the biggest problem for sea horses is nutrition due to their digestive tract, the fact that they have no stomach means they need very nutritional food because the food only get digested as it goes through, and my marine biologist tells me its not unusual to see mysys come out still alive at the other end :)

David

[SPC]

Originally posted by DavidTQ
Steve

And his name is? Does this guy recommend that sea horses can be added to a NSW aquarium immediately? What do the authorities on Sea Horse.org think about this mathod?

I shall post his name if I get his permission, as he does not seem like the type to falsh his name around as a trademark. I am speaking to him this weekend, however I note that he is amongst there recommended authors. Yes he does recommend that sea horses can be added to a NSW aquariujm immeadeatly, on the condition that the substrate and rocks etc etc are also direct from the sea, as he runs europes biggest sea horse conservation centre and captive breeding program I would say he know a tad more about keeping sea horses responsibly than you or I.

And what is his water change schedule David?

Correct They do not believe in the use of skimmers, and they do run semi closed systems (these tanks do stay in contact with the sea through regular water changes

Well that answers that David, if I did masive water changes using filtered NSW, I would have no use for a skimmer either.

- it should be noted that the sea is also a closed system, with the sun as its set of halides and the rain as its top up -

Oh David, you can't possibly be serious with this statement. Are you actually trying to compare the ocean to a public aquarium or Theo's tank?

we do not claim to have a complete biotope, but a MORE complete biotope that works very well), they have found through many years of experience that certain anemones and crabs can not be kept alive with a skimmers in the tank and also that in a NSW aquarium filter feeders etc fair far better without a skimmer, it is also vital for the raising of marine fish young that no skimming takes place in a tank. Yes we do captive breed SW fish here.

Sure all of this fairs well without a skimmer, massive water changes, little feeding of animal protien and large volumes of water all play a part in this.

I would say that seeing as we have a record for an anemone living in captivity for 50 years in - wow a NSW tank without a skimmer!

Do you have a link showing this?

We also have regular Anemone spawnings, I am currently growing on about 40 baby anemone's to pass on to the hobby, guess what in an unskimmed tank.

No doubt, many people on this board (including me) have their anemones spawn, even with a skimmer.


It is also well documnted that skimmers take out certain minerals which are needed for proper moulting of crabs.

A link to this documentation please.

Yes I am well aware that plankton populations vary, but the amount of plankton in 50 gallons amounting "squat" is very very false, the plankton do die in transport but only if stored for a long time, in my tank I can guarantee that my plankton populations are higher than in any skimmed tanks.

I will not disagree for a minute that plankton populations are not higher in unskimmed tanks, this still dosen't disprove my assertion that they don't amount to squat. Do you have some plankton density studies for your tank that you could let us look at?

Plankton reproduce at very fast rates, and will establish a population that can be sustained with the available food source (providing they are not constantly killed by a skimmer)

How are you sustaining them in your reef tank David? What do you feed the plankton?

from a review of the monaco aquarium :-

The Monaco aquarium uses an open system David, the Jaubert system (and the data that goes with it) was gathered while using an open system.

Another review of an unskimmed tank -

http://www.ecosystemaquarium.com/ht...fTanks_pg1.html

No one here has argued that tanks can't be run with an Eco System, did you think someone was?

it says a lot about the benefits of diversity and plankton populations in an unskimmed tank.

Not as far as I'm concerned David. I see no actual scientific data on closed systems that would back your claim.

Methods vary for unskimmed tanks, but the benefits are there for the world to see, my own system at the moment is based on the ecosystems model, but plenty of people are running with macro algae in their main tank to deal with nitrate export and relying on regular water changes for mineral balance and added biodiversity (water will contain different larvae and plankton at different times of the year)

Tell me something David, if it is necessary to have all of this so called plankton in our tanks, then why do public aquariums run massive skimmers?
Why do public aquariums filter out the plankton before they introduce NSW to their tanks?
How is it possible that people run reef tanks (thousands on this board alone) that have great coral growth and run skimmers?

You do realize that plankton is not the most nutritious food for many corals don't you?

The Caribean Big Long Nosed butterfly Forcipger longirostris, although it will survive on live \ frozen brine shrimp, this is not a good enough diet for a long and healthy life, it is recommended by many sources that it should only be added to a tank with healthy and varied population of pods, for it to hunt and eat (that is what that long nose is for - getting into nooks and crannys and digging out pods)

From "The Conscientious Maine Aquarist" by Robert Fenne(BTW this was just the first book I picked up sitting by the computer)

"Despite their looks, these fishes accept all types of foods - frozen, fresh, and prepared - with gusto.

The National Marine Aquarium DO skim their water, they dont however have a complete flow through system due to the difference in temperature and the chances of shipping pollution etc in the water outside, they do however carry out slow water change as and when conditions are ok to do so (being as they are right at the entrance to a major naval harbour they have to take precautions)

Sure they have to take precautions, some of us have been saying that this is just common sense all along.

I would say though however that this is directly comaparable to Theo's skimmed NSW tank with regular good water changes.

And I would say you are wrong. Comparing Theo's little glass box of water to what this huge aquarium does is like.... well... trying to compare the Eco System's plankton populations to the ocean.

As far as doubting the integrity and knowledge aquarium and dedicated proffesionals perhaps you would like to reveal your qualifications and experience in the hobby in this thread, I personally will listen to a marine biologist who has dedicated his life to marine conservation with plenty of proof of his success, over a fellow hobbyist with 10 years experience of a completely different type of setup.

Awww, I had a feeling this was coming, asking for credentials now are we? You do realize that just because one holds a degree that this does not exclude them from having people question their methods don't you? In fact, you may want to ask Mojo what his degree is in.

I have already stated that the marine biologist I was speaking of, he has over 50 seahorse tanks started inthe manner that has been described, and he breeds and studies these animals, he does not suffer deaths, he does not have ill fish, he knows far more about sea horse's and the caring for them, than I do,(or unless revealed otherwise) you do. He also has been succesfully keeping Reef tanks for 20 years, something not many here can boast, he was using live rock and NSW 20 years ago and still suceeds without skimming.

Did you read on this thread where anyone said he didn't? Again, I would like to see a link so that I can decide for myself (in this small hobbyist brain) what his methods are.

Perhaps this is all lies and bumpf, but what are YOUR qualifications to argue with them or disprove their ways?

What on earth are you saying here David??? Argue with them or disprove their ways?? You already stated that they skim their NSW, why would I argue with that??

Sorry if this section sounds immflamatory, I am trying to establish your level of knowledge, I have no doubt you are more experienced and knowledgable than me in reef keeping, but I doubt that you are knowledgable enought to challenge the people who's advice I go by.

David, you can establish my level of knowledge through this discussion.

I did take mild offense at your tone suggesting these people are irresponsible and killing animals en masse.

You are wrong here David, my point was that we do not know for certain what goes on behind closed doors. I never said that every public aquarium is irresponsible and kills animals en masse. In fact, I don't remember saying that any did. If I remember correctly, what I said was that we don't know.

Actually its not a flow through system, the water is held in the system's (not all interconnected) and heated (being as our local water is 12c which is a little chilly for reefs.

You forgot to say "and skimmed" David. BTW do you know if they use sand type filtration? What is the filtration they use?

They carry out (as in common with the monaco aquarium) continual slow water change, but this is simply because that is easier than draining 20% of every tank and refilling it every couple of weeks,

Really, how do you know this? It would seem to me that there would be real advantages to changing water slowly.

this therefore is directly comparable to keeping things in a NSW box and doing water changes, I dont doubt they change a far higher percentage water change than I do, but I am not keeping turtles etc, I like to understock my tanks.

Bologna David, its not even close. Do you know how much water they change every day? You mentioned 20% above, is that the % they change each day? Do you know how they filter the water before introducing it? Do you know (for a fact) that they don't filter the water in the tanks on a daily basis?

Very much so, I look forward to reading everything I can get my hands on, you can never have to much knowledge. I would also like very much to carry out some scientific studies based on the methods of which we have been discussing.

You can find all of this information in the on-line magazines here on RC and over on Reefs.org. Then you can look at the threads where these articles are discussed. If you want anything specific let me know and I would be glad to help.

Well I havent any links to scientific data only hobbyist data for small tanks,

Thats because there isn't any except for Dr Rons.

however I may well have a word with my friendly marine biologist and see if he has any details on plankton counts and diversity in his closed (see notes above on closedness of systems) systems, which he has been running for many years. As for the differences between Theo's tanks and a synthetic setup after a few weeks, there is a big difference because his is not only NSW but also live pod populations living rock etc straight from the ocean, no dieing and recuring involved,he has stated his huge populations this would not be the case with a setup that new using a synthetic setup and materials from the LFS, there is more than just the water to this equation.

David, I had a huge pod population in my one week old synthetic salt tank after adding some caulerpa. Pods don't seem to care.
When I put the L/R in after 2 weeks, the glass was covered with pods.

[b]No they should not show up in any tank after 3 months, the point I was making was that his have not been showing since 3 days, and the fact that they are staying indetectable means that at least the filter bacteria are coping with the load and so he has not bee irresponsibly stocking his tank as far as the filter bacteria go (lets face it ammonia and nitrate are still big killers in many tanks)

No disagreement here, ammonia is a killer.

Indeed you would not want the water to be the same after 2 weeks, the life in the tank will adjust and find balance with its bioload, using NSW and natural life and rocks etc etc, will help immensely with this due to the diversity of life found therein, however these same changes have to occur when any new stock is added to any tank, I do not feel that Theo has been irresponsible in the time take to build up his population, Certainly I dont agree with everything he has done, but I believe that with a healthy amount of life already in the tank and good clean water I dont see why he shouldnt have success, I would suspect if he is moving and losing his ready supply of fresh NSW then he is going to come across problems.

If there is a specific inadequacy that you are expecting to come up in the tank please tell Theo about it so that he can monitor it.

I disagree David, there are many changes that will take place within the the aquarium over the first months. Mojo listed many of them and they would be hard for Theo to quantify (Example: I don't think a hobbyist test is available for all the various bacteria blooms that will occur).
Steve

[SPC]

Originally posted by DavidTQ
On that one there is a problem, as your corals etc grow they will strip the calcium (even soft corals) and OTHER minerals from the water, as there is a limited amount of elements in the water, the thing which I would keep a close eye on is you ph levels, if you arent doing regular NSW water changes these levels will be affected, have you got calcium test etc there, I'd keep a close eye on those if you arent doing water changes, otherwise SPC could be right and that will be what leads to your tank crash. CA should be around 350-400, if it isnt, Id get your water changes going, if your life cant get the minerals it needs from the water its gonna cause problems, having a calcium based substrate isnt going to to much for your CA levels either - by the time PH reaches the point where that is entering the water in usefull levels you will have lost most of your stock, just a helpful hint check your element levels, if all is still fine - even I will be amazed :) if not dont worry there's still time to correct things, but your livestock wont like big swings. Perhaps if you post you CA results here, after 10 weeks I would expect to see some drop in ca levels.

David

David, you didn't mention the possibility of organic build up, do you not see this as a problem with no water changes? Does the National Marine Aquarium only perform water changes in order to keep the CA levels up, PH stable, and to add trace elements?
Steve

[cecilturtle]

Originally posted by Theo A
And now I'm going to REALLY turn heads by telling you:

I've never changed my water once since adding the NSW. Only top off R/o and kalk.

Ni - Zip
Na - zero


All this and from a name that means "A God...?"

[thefatman]

this must be the best thread i have ever read here...

everyone is saying the same thing and dont even know it :lol:

fwiw theo, i know plenty of people that dont perform water changes, only top off and add trace elements, kalk, etc...

i also know plenty of people that do everythign the "right" way. set a tank up, wait 4 months to add something, wait one month before new additions and still havea tank crash in a year.

doing it the "right" way does not guarantee success any more than doing it the less accepted way guarantees failure.

theo, i wish you the best of luck with your tank. i wish i could be so lucky to have nsw at my disposal, and the opportunity to collect my own live rock.

btw: how far off shore do you collect your water? i have family in tampa that would like to collect thier own, but they have no clue what;s a safe distance from shore to avoid contamination.

[Mojoreef]

The algal blooms I know happen, but I have yet to see them cause a problem for tank occupants, indeed the bloom of algae is one of natures ways of dealing with instability and does happen in nature and can rehappen if a well established tank becomes unsettled. As for critter blooms, he is already helping with that with a live population
I here ya David but you have to thnk about what you just said. Algae blooms are a part of a new tanks early stages. What cuases these blooms, in your words (and mine) instability. Is an instable enviroment the right place to put delicate creatures?? For me I choose not to, some might think other wise. Remember the cause of the algae bloom?? and then remember the impact the bloom has, Co2 being raised, pH being lowered, orp taking a hit, and so on. In mature tanks the blooms are usually point specific or localized.

David my tank was set up using NSW. IMHO NSW is a more pure water source (as i most of the time it has far less impurities) but when it comes to alk, cal/mag and so on I find ASW to be far more stable in these levels.

I think a lot of this flux is taken care of very early on when the tank is setting up using NSW and afterwards condition changes are minimalised by adding fresh NSW (from a nice stable source)
Ok now you lost me, lol. Is that not what we are debating? Or is it just the ammount of time need for this settling? For me the time has not passed until you have completed your aglae bloom periods. This way you wil pass the fluxes that these will cause.
Theo as far as I can see is dealing with his alk, cal, mag etc in the safest way possible by using NSW in his water changes, plenty of water changes using that will keep the tank far more balanced than adding elements and compensating for elements lost through skimming or consumer by occupants, regular water changes are the key to success with a NSW tank
Well That is a perfect world situation. What happens when his bioload demads more of certain elements then simple water changes can do??
However I would say that a reef tank set up can still be accelerated by using NSW, and by continued use of nSW you are greatly helping the stability of the tank, because the chances of over dosing elements etc are greatly reduced,
David I have to disagree to a point on this one. I use only NSW and have set up most of the tanks I have had with them, but I dont see any difference in stability. In regards to elements replenishing, I would say that relying on NSW is not the best way to go.
I believe that the more diversity in tank the more stable the system is going to be, One of my desires is to set up a self maintained biotope tank, where all I have to do is add heat and light and pure water, and let the system feed itself and adapt itself to its inhabitants. Allowing the recylcing of elements through natural life cycles etc to keep things flowing through the tank, a sealed system a mini ocean,
This my friend I totally disagree with you. All though it is warm and fuzzy it is very far from the truth. Our closed systems are anything but what happens in nature. Trying to mimic natures recycling of elements will not happen. We do not have the water volume, flow,and all the needed elements to even come close. Remember with divecity of creatures coms the nasties. They out compete the goods 10 to 1, so dont even go thier, or you can but it will be a hard lesson.

Mike

[DavidTQ]

Right well been away all weekend, lots of questions to answer

What is his water change schedule?

a little bit more than mine he does around 20%weekly, I do around 10%

Oh David, you can't possibly be serious with this statement. Are you actually trying to compare the ocean to a public aquarium or Theo's tank?

Oh yes I can, The sea is a closed system, that why us dumping our rubbish in it causes problems, The sea is one big aquarium, with all the same issues as you have in your tank, you get critter blooms that threaten diversity, for example excess nutrients in the water over the barrier reef allow for plankton blooms that allows for higher survival rates of Crown of thorns starfish that leads to depletion of reefs, that leads to lack of biodiversity, problem is unlike in our tanks when that sort of problem (on a small scale) happens the barrier reef doesnt go to the LFS and buy some more corals it has to slowly spread threatening the stability and biodiversity of the reef for many many years to come.

Sure all of this fairs well without a skimmer, massive water changes, little feeding of animal protien and large volumes of water all play a part in this.

Well personally Im prepared to do the work to keep my tanks going well, Im a long long term hobbyist, and am prepared to put myself out to give my fish and other pets the best possible life.

Do you have a link showing this?

"Sir John Dalyell at his time kept a well-known specimen of Actinia equina named "Granny" in captivity for decades and at his decease Charles Peach inherited the animal, which in this way happened to live in Edinburgh for more than 50 years, so at least certain species seem to be able to have a very long potential life span."
(from Hans.G.Hansson@TMBL.GU.SE **** Tjaernoe Marine Biological Lab. ****
http://www.tmbl.gu.se Phone: +46 526 686 36 Fax: +46 526 686 07
Personal home page: http://www.tmbl.gu.se/staff/HansGHanssonP.html )

I will not disagree for a minute that plankton populations are not higher in unskimmed tanks, this still dosen't disprove my assertion that they don't amount to squat. Do you have some plankton density studies for your tank that you could let us look at?

Well I've been planning to purchase a microscope for a while now to record exactly what I have got in my tanks, Perhaps you would suggest a method which you would regards as accurate enough to satisfy you as to the diversity and levels of plankton in my tanks, although as a helpful guide, I visited a guy over the weekend with a 2000L (526 US GAL) reef set up that is well established, with protein skimmers etc all the additives under the sun, his tanks is very famous it has been reviewed by at least 3 magazines and is very stable, It is a beautiful tank but you can see the differences immedeatly between the two tanks, you can see the larger members of plankton in my water, you can see the ridiculous amounts of life on my live rock compared to his, his tanks is a great example of the modern Marine aquarium, but the amount of evidence of plankton and biodiversity can be seen just by looking in the tank.

How are you sustaining them in your reef tank David? What do you feed the plankton?

How do I feed my plankton? Well there's more than one type of plankton theres the zooplankton and the phyto plankton, Zoo plankton eats the phyto plankton and smaller zoo plankton, phyto plankton gains its energy from the lightin and the nutrients in the water acting as a form of filtration in itself, of course Corals and all other filter feeders (including sponges etc) eat plankton as well (that would be what the polyps are for).

From an "Educational Website"

The source of all life in the Sea is the sun. Plant plankton absorbs its energy and uses it to create carbohydrates. The plant plankton is then fed upon by animal plankton such as copepods, and larger animal plankton species and fish. Some plankton fall to the seabed providing food for the animals that live there including bottom-feeding fish and other species that inhabit the sea bed. The animals such as crabs and fish feed on the large food remains, whilst the smaller animals such as shellfish and anemones filter minute particles from the water. The larger predatory fish eat smaller fish and crustaceans. Predatory fish are also eaten by seabirds and marine mammals. Detritus provides nutrients for plant life.

Hence we have a food web (chain) The amount of plankton still present in the water can be easily enough determined by the number of filter feeders growing and breeding in the tank. Of course over loading a tank with corals and other filter feeders will reduce the population of plankton (just as the overpopulation of crown of thorns starfish wipes out a reef instead of trimming it)

The Monaco aquarium uses an open system David, the Jaubert system (and the data that goes with it) was gathered while using an open system.

Its not an "open system" its a water change system it is not continous, they shut it off at times with weather problems or pollution or natural algal blooms, their life comes from their own refugiums as well. Their water change rate is higher than mine, but that is because they have the facility to do so, not because they have to, Mine is also a water change system but I dont change as much as they do, but I also stock lighter and tend the tank more.

Tell me something David, if it is necessary to have all of this so called plankton in our tanks, then why do public aquariums run massive skimmers?
Why do public aquariums filter out the plankton before they introduce NSW to their tanks?
How is it possible that people run reef tanks (thousands on this board alone) that have great coral growth and run skimmers?

You do realize that plankton is not the most nutritious food for many corals don't you?

Not all public aquarium do run massive skimmers, it is down to the quality of water in their area, if their colelction point is likely to have problems from time to time they will have to skim.

These people may have great coral growth but if you read more info on the monaco aquarium and from the Eco systems you would see that those with plankton get better growth, plankton is part of the corals natural lifestyle - thats what the polyps are for. They dont live as well on kalkwasser and symbiotic algae alone, also many clams are also known to need plankton to live, despite having symbiotic algae they need more, thats why many hobbyist are now turning to bottled live or dead plankton normally paying through the nose for phytoplankton, that they are killing off with their skimmers anyway.

So what are you proposing is the best and most nutritous source of food for corals?

And I would say you are wrong. Comparing Theo's little glass box of water to what this huge aquarium does is like.... well... trying to compare the Eco System's plankton populations to the ocean.

Well having seen more from Theo you are probably quite right, water change is necesary, As for ecosystems plankton populations being compared to the ocean on a plankton count for litre of water basis it may be close it may not, I think my tank using NSW would be very close, But I guess I will find out soon enough as there is a plankton tow being done in our local area in a couple of weeks - led funnily enough by my marine biologist friend.

Awww, I had a feeling this was coming, asking for credentials now are we? You do realize that just because one holds a degree that this does not exclude them from having people question their methods don't you? In fact, you may want to ask Mojo what his degree is in.

I accept that his methods and ideas are open to criticism but how seriously I would take critisims from a hobbyist who hasnt at least studied the matter out or tried it to see the results a little like I would take fish breeding tips from some one who has just had their first guppies breeding on them and managed to save a couple. being as I have been breeding fish for 20 years and raised just about every type of FW fish going and supply to wholesalers and LFS on a regular basis.

Really, how do you know this? It would seem to me that there would be real advantages to changing water slowly.

Because I read an awful lot to learn as much as I possibly can about a topic.

Thats because there isn't any except for Dr Rons.

I doubt thats the case, but if it is lets change that, as I said above Im going to be getting a microscope soon, lets come up with a system that would satisfy your mind on analysing natural tanks.

David, you didn't mention the possibility of organic build up, do you not see this as a problem with no water changes? Does the National Marine Aquarium only perform water changes in order to keep the CA levels up, PH stable, and to add trace elements?

Organic build up should be taken care of by his skimmer and filtration. I prefer to have as much life as possible in a tank to make maxiumum use of nutrients, that way instead of just diluting buildup your excess's are being used to grow the lif in the tank being turned into more feather duster, or more mussel or more snail, or more caulerpa or coral.

btw: how far off shore do you collect your water? i have family in tampa that would like to collect thier own, but they have no clue what;s a safe distance from shore to avoid contamination.

This depends one heck of a lot on you location some areas are safe furth inshore than others :) maybe ask the local Uni if they have studied the matter at all.

David my tank was set up using NSW. IMHO NSW is a more pure water source (as i most of the time it has far less impurities) but when it comes to alk, cal/mag and so on I find ASW to be far more stable in these levels.

I dont doubt that, you are no doubt an experienced and comptent reef keeper, but I have heard enough stories of people mis mixing their salts, and most salts are not entirely balanced so you end up getting a correct PH but a wrong Hardness etc, whereas with regular NSW changes levels should stay pretty stable.

Ok now you lost me, lol. Is that not what we are debating? Or is it just the ammount of time need for this settling? For me the time has not passed until you have completed your aglae bloom periods. This way you wil pass the fluxes that these will cause.

What I am saying is that the time to settlement will be quicker, just the same way as of you taker mature water filters stock etc from one tank and put them in another the tank will settle down a lot quicker and get past the blooms a lot quicker than starting fresh.

"Well That is a perfect world situation. What happens when his bioload demads more of certain elements then simple water changes can do??"

Well the answer I choose is not to stock so heavily that my water changes wont keep up with the level being consumed. When I see a need I may artificially add some elements, but not until demand outstrips supply.

This my friend I totally disagree with you. All though it is warm and fuzzy it is very far from the truth. Our closed systems are anything but what happens in nature. Trying to mimic natures recycling of elements will not happen. We do not have the water volume, flow,and all the needed elements to even come close. Remember with divecity of creatures coms the nasties. They out compete the goods 10 to 1, so dont even go thier, or you can but it will be a hard lesson.

We will have to agree to disagree here (well kind of perhaps we disagree more to the level of recycling that can be done, I believe I do have to work in the tank say harvesting caulerpa, feedin certain fish, etc etc, but I like to allow natural recycling as much as possible ) :), I say the same thing happens in nature as the well known example I have used else where of the Crown of Thorns starfish, I believe the larger the volume of water the easier it is and the more life you can fit in a tank, but lets not forget that life can find its own levels in small ditches and be self sustaining, and self recycling, I see tending the tank etc as part of my duties, If I have to take the place of a missing or problematic natural predator then so be it. But I will rely on natural systems as much as possible.

Even an aiptasia or fireworm or crown of thorns starfish have their place in nature, to eradicate them completely is not the answer, but certainly number control is needed, In nature this happens ever so slowly, in our tanks we can do things a little faster, but we dont get the same end results, if we followed this to its natural conclusion, say you have an outbreak of aiptasia you done nothing about, and the aiptasia covered the whole tank strangling everythin taking all the nutrients, how long would it be before it all died back again, eventually it would happen but who would want 10 years of an aiptasia tank :) of course then the area would need to be reseeded, which would happen in a completely closed system, but I think the more open \ larger a system is the better the balance will be.

David

[Mojoreef]

David I think we are alot closer then you think. The one thing that worried me about this thread and the reason i posted on it, was that I was hearing a line of with NSW you can basically dump in the water and you are pretty close to being able to place critters. You made references to the fact that even ditches have micro enviroments. This is dead on, but in the same breath were not going to go and drop fish or coral into it.
Our reef tanks, if they are 10 gallons to 1000 gallons are closed system and in no way reproduce what goes on in nature. NSW or ASW if does not matter they are closed. When we look at our tanks we look at the whole package, from lighting to plumbing to filtration. In the wild you must look at it the same way. The filtration in the wild comes from a host of differing sources, Sandy beaches to mangrove swamps to absyals to sponge laidened beds to kelp beds and so on. It is drievn by massive ammounts of energy in the ways of waves, tides and so on. The scale of amount of water is in the billions of gallons. To try to reproduce it in that little glass box is just not going to happen. What we can do is to set up an artifical life support system that will house the creatures we try to keep. We steal a little here and a little thier but in no way reproduce it.
I have always found that a reefer will become sucessful once and only if they realize this and begin to work with in the boundries we have.

mike

[bubbls255]

Oh my goodness!!! The ocean had an algae bloom!


http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/localstoryA5329A.htm (Ocean algae bloom)

[DavidTQ]

David I think we are alot closer then you think.

Quite possibly :)

The one thing that worried me about this thread and the reason i posted on it, was that I was hearing a line of with NSW you can basically dump in the water and you are pretty close to being able to place critters.

If nothing else perhaps a good reading of this thread will help people to gain an awareness of the issues involved in choosing how to set up their aquarium, lots of points raised etc, but a lot of my posts were based upon what I have learnt but didnt give that information(lets face it NSW and the life in it is a subject on which a great many books can,and have been written and is still an incomplete picture), constant debate has helped bring out some issues behind NSW there are lots more but hopefully there is enough to get people thinking.

You made references to the fact that even ditches have micro enviroments. This is dead on, but in the same breath were not going to go and drop fish or coral into it.

Too true, Couldnt agree more, I think what I was trying to say is that you have to suit the amount and type of life to the tank setup and life support systems you have in place. I try to have more natural systems, but not because Im trying to be lazy, I spend a huge amount of time tending my various tanks, trying to give my fish the best possible life, not necesarily giving my rooms the brightest decoration.

To try to reproduce it in that little glass box is just not going to happen. What we can do is to set up an artifical life support system that will house the creatures we try to keep. We steal a little here and a little thier but in no way reproduce it.

I accept completely I havent got the whole ocean in the box, I just try to have as much as possible, I accept the fact that I have to support the tank etc whether or not I use NSW or ASW There is a lot of work involved in maintaining a tank.

. What we can do is to set up an artifical life support system that will house the creatures we try to keep. We steal a little here and a little thier but in no way reproduce it.

Yes I agree completely with that one, I try to steal as much as possible not for laziness, as its actually a huge amount of work involved in transporting huge amounts of water etc I just like to give them as natural an environment as possible, But I do accept that there are boundaries to what can be done, even complete flow through public aquariums etc will have life support systems to some degree, and backup systems in place in case of water problems.

Hopefully despite the title of this thread and how far off topic it has gone, people will become a little more aware of some of the issues involved, there is of course a lot more still to cover but hopefully it will help to a degree, just dont know how many people can be bothered to read the whole thing :).

Maybe Theo will have checked his water more by now (and will continue to do so) and come up with some alternative ways to run his tank, his stock can still be saved (hopefully) and maybe if nothing else it may help someone else from thinking there is so little to running a longterm setup

David

[Theo A]

Maybe Theo will have checked his water more by now (and will continue to do so) and come up with some alternative ways to run his tank, his stock can still be saved (hopefully)

I'll keep checking it everyday, as I always have. Unless it's broken, then I don't think I'm going to "fix" anything. How many more tests do you want me to do? I test for CA, dKh, NA, NI, ammonia every other day, and I have a PH monitor (pin-point).

[thefatman]

theo..sounds to me like if you dont follow the "recommended way" then you are going to crash.. that, or some folks are simply jealous that you have access to collect your own live rock, and you can collect your own NSW... too funny.

from the sounds of things, you know what you are doing. you are running the appropriate tests, and you are keeping a close eye on things.. best of luck to you!

fwiw, as i mentioned in an earlier post: following the crowd does NOT guarantee success, any more than doing it your own way will guarantee falure.

if someone could show me DOCUMENTED PROOF of the ONE PERFECT way to setup and maintain a salt water tank, and GUARANTEE that it will never crash, never have a death, and nothing will ever go wrong... then i'll be happy to switch my ways as well.

until then, it's all "this worked for me, but didn't work for him, but this worked for her, yet didnt work for me" there are no guarantees, and there is no "perfect way"

[gregt]

There is no perfect way. However, there are ways that have proven effective time and time again. Likewise, there are ways that have proven ineffective time and time again. Which will you choose?

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by thefatman
theo..sounds to me like if you dont follow the "recommended way" then you are going to crash.. that, or some folks are simply jealous that you have access to collect your own live rock, and you can collect your own NSW... too funny.


Well, in Florida it's illegal to collect live rock. Not from international waters; but LR collection was banned in '97. So nothing to brag about if it was collected in Florida. I'm sure you could get some great pieces as it's now being conserved.

Originally posted by thefatman

fwiw, as i mentioned in an earlier post: following the crowd does NOT guarantee success, any more than doing it your own way will guarantee falure.


I always thought DSB's were following the crowd. Seems like that's all you hear about online and especially RC. Not the longest-term trend ... and some people are now changing back to bare-bottom or other substrates for their display tanks.

Plenty of people never changed to DSB - and their tanks are still established, healthy, and thriving ... years later.

The water changes that Theo doesn't do .... have always been a part of successful fishkeeping as far as I can trace. I don't see many examples of no water changes that are out there and successful in the long term. But every tank that I've seen as `tank of the month' or elsewhere have ALL used water changes at least on some basis.

Prove us wrong, fine ... but it's over the long term that all this is measured. If you really never change water, just top-up and add calcium ... and it's successful down the line - I'd love to hear about it. But I don't think it's a year old, sounded like it was only maybe 6 months. Not the time to proclaim wild success yet - as most fish and corals can live years if not decades.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by thefatman
from the sounds of things, you know what you are doing. you are running the appropriate tests, and you are keeping a close eye on things.. best of luck to you!


Jay, I find it a little ironic that you were asking advice as a newby in Feb of this year on how to set up your first salt water tank, had your new tank totally crash in May because you rushed it, and now you are advising someone else to rush too.

[Theo A]

I didn't collect live rock, and I never said I did

I don't ever remember jumping up and down proclaiming success, although I'm darn proud and happy of the results so far.

I've become aquainted with several tanks that run the same system I'm running, and have been operating months, and years.

I'm tired of talking about it though, as I'm just brushed aside as a newbie who is a "irresponsable reefkeeper". Thats Ok. If being irresponsable inlcudes haveing everything in your tank propogate and grow, then label me! :D

[SPC]

Hi David,
I haven't had time the last couple of days to reply in length to this thread, I'll get back to it soon I hope.
Steve

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Theo A
I've become aquainted with several tanks that run the same system I'm running, and have been operating months, and years.


Theo, it's not the tank that needs the learning curve, it's the operator.

[Mojoreef]

Hey Theo, personally I hope you have sucess and never go through any problems. For me I am only stating what I know. Thier are many choices that we make in this hobby, what you do is your biz, not my :) . I come here and to other boards to pass on what I have experenced, thats all. For me to rush into a tank is just not worth it. You run a higher risk of something going wrong. Anyway good luck in your tank.

Jay Jay Jay.:rolleyes:

Mike

[Theo A]

Thanks Jay!

All I origionally posted was the fact that there are several tanks around here that have been operating for some time now, with good success using the same system I have. I can see the scepticism with my setup, although there sure wern't many comments after I posted the pics either. As far as the other tanks I'm copying, they have been around awhile.

Who knows, perhaps I'm just an anomolie (sp?) and I'm lucking out. I like to think it's the fact that I'm following instructions from others that have had success doing what I'm doing.

Thats all for me. I'll make sure to post pics of my progress throughout the following months. You'll be the second to know if something dies, crashes, etc....


BTW....I was looking at the reef log of the "tank of the month".... seems he added fish and corals to his tank only 2 weeks after its inception. Perhaps some of you guys need to bombard him with emails as well.

[thefatman]

bomber : yep, and i still ask for advice. i want my tank to be as good as it can possibly be. my first tank crashed due to copper in the tank. yes that was my fault because i didnt bother to test for copper first. but nothing was added to my tank without the "approval" of those i sought for advice first. then when things starting looking bad, i still sought the advice of those same poeple. fwiw, that particular tank is still running great, havent lost the fish or star or crabs. just the two corals and snails.

but i dont claim to have succeeded yet, jsut on my way. with regular water changes, and good husbandry techniques, that i have gained from thsoe willing to offer advice.

i'm not recommending that someone else rush into anything. jsut merely pointing out a simple fact. following one way does not guarantee successs.

yes certain ways have been proven time and time again to be more stable, or more reliable than others. and that's how i choose to run my tanks. i choose to follow the crowd.

but i dont see the point in bashing someone because they choose not to. theo may be following the path less traveled. and it may be less traveled for good reason, but that doesn't guarantee that his tank will crash. and if he followed the advice of everyone here, it doesnt mean his tank wont crash. sure the odds may very well be against him. but i think some of the "cram our idea's down your throat- tactics" get nowhere, with many people.

i hope his tank does well. i have no desire to run my tank in the same fashion. i perform weekly water changes. i have daily and wekly and monthly maintenance procedures laid out for the tank. test often, watch closely, etc.. everything that's been receommended to me. but if someone else chooses a different route, and they have already made up thier mind, is bashing going to change that?

mojo mojo mojo :rolleyes: :lol:

[DavidTQ]

Theo, what are your current Ca and ph levels, and do you add calcium to your tank to supplement usage? Do you add any form of buffer and or trace elements? What must be rememebred about sea water is the huge number of elements contained in it, its far more than just calicum, this is part of the reasoning behind water changes to keep up levels of ALL these elements. Unfortunately we havent got the facilities to test for the presence of all these, but any of these being wrong can cause problems in a tank.

David

[DavidTQ]

Hi David,
I haven't had time the last couple of days to reply in length to this thread, I'll get back to it soon I hope.
Steve

Know what you mean these long posts take a hell of a time :) and if you give one word answers to things it doesnt get the point across :) Look forward to your next post :)

David

[SPC]

Hi David, I was about an hour and a half into replying to your post yesterday when I decided to go paste a link. When I returned, my complete post was gone into oblivion:mad2: . So, I have decided to try and reply to only a few of the points in order to save my "old" back:)

The following is what I don't think we will agree on:

1. The ocean is a closed system.

2. The Monaco aquarium is a water change system very similar to your system.

3. It is OK to introduce animals to a newly set up aquarium.

4. A random grab of 50 gallons of NSW will produce enough plankton to satisfy the inhabitants of the tank.

5. Enough plankton can be grown in our tanks so as to make any difference. Note: IMO David, when you accumulate some data about plakton populations with your microscope, this information should be included in an article written for one of the on line magazines. This info could be very important for our hobby, but I would like to see it exposed in this fashion for peer review.

6. All corals use their polyps to capture plankton.

7. Plankton is the most nutritious food for corals. The following is a reply I got from a Marine Biologist friend dealing with this subject:


Most plankton is composed of phyto - plant.

The one missing ingredient that corals need that's in short supply is a amino acid profile - nitrogen. While a certain amount of nitrogen fixing takes place in the zoox, bluegreens, and bacteria that they farm, and truthfully that's about all they need in the wild, a little more don't hurt.
Blender mush is just protien/nitrogen, while there is very little direct feeding on it if you're talking slics in captivity, it provides the profile for the bacteria they culture. Skewing it toward a different type a bacteria that's more nutritious.

Steve

[mawv1]

Tangs belong in the ocean NOT in our little glass boxes. What don't you understand?????????????/

[Theo A]

Theo, what are your current Ca and ph levels, and do you add calcium to your tank to supplement usage? Do you add any form of buffer and or trace elements?

CA is 420, and fluctuates between 420-440. Probably because I dose kalk along with my RO top off, and in this little tank, it's easy to fluctuate it a bit.

My PH swings from 8.10 to 8.5 by the end of the day. I attribute the swing at night to the CO2 my macro algae gives off. If I trim the macro, the PH stays above 8.3 always, until it grows back. This has happened twice, an observable change when I trim. Might not be the reason, but it makes sense to me.

I do add Iodine (a few drops) every few days.

At first, I needed dKh buffer, pretty aggressively to get the alk up, but now I'll only buff it once every 2 weeks.
dKh stays ~11.0

[Mojoreef]

My PH swings from 8.10 to 8.5 by the end of the day
Everyone gets a bit of a swing at night, but I would say its more like in your case that your dosing to much kalk and it is jacking up your PH. This is OK as the tank is early in its life. Once you dial in your demand you should have it all worked out.

I do add Iodine (a few drops) every few days
Do you have a reading on the iodine bud


At first, I needed dKh buffer, pretty aggressively to get the alk up, but now I'll only buff it once every 2 weeks.

I am not sure about the others Theo but this was what I was talking about in letting a tank mature a bit first. Besides being a tad to quick on critters you are doing pretty good. You PH is swinging 4.5 points thats dangerious to critters, YOur still dialing in your cal and alk consumtion,.
See these are the things I was tring to tell you to wait until you got them fixed and dialed in first. EVERYBODY has to do what you are doing. The question I have to ask you is. Wouldnt you think it would be better to solve all these little swings and problems prior to housing delicate creatures, instead of making them suffer through it. You might get lucky you might not. Do you think its worth it.???

mike

[Theo A]

hmmm.... So you are saying my Ph shouldn't swing .2-.4 pts dealing with the macro and lighting? If I keep the macro trimmed well, it's pretty consistant (well, 8.5- 8.3 - 8.5), so perhaps I should stay ontop of that more. Man that stuff grows fast.

The only thing I don't like about my doseing of kalk, is that it's not very easy to dose a prescise amount. Hopefully this will be easier soon, as I'm moving everything into a 46, and I plan on doseing kalk, and having a CA reactor as well.

What kind of signs should I look for in my critters if I'm "stressing them out"?

[Mojoreef]

>2 is not so bad is what most folks concider to be normal swings. .4 and above IMHO is alot less desirable. At the begining of a new tank you must try and find out what its demand is for alk and cal. Once you figure this out you can add the appropriate ammount of kalk or what ever.
To figure out your demand simply take a measure of you alk and cal. then stop any dosing of any kind for 3 days. at the end of the 3 days take another measure. then its just math. figure out the difference from day one to day 3. this ammount is what you tank takes out of the water. Now dose a set ammount for 1 day, then measure, then back to the math. the difference is what you are putting back in over the coarse of a day based on the drip rate. It should be easy to figure out from thier.
I am not sure if you said u have a refugium with algae or if its in the main. If its in the refugium you can simply light the refugium up when the main lights go out. This keeps the respiration constant and will buffer the swing.
Every critter will show signs of stress in differing ways. An anenome will usually shrink, or not actively seek food.

What you are doing now is pretty much par for the coarse. Allowing cycles to happen, spawns to happen, dialing various components of your reef tank system, all what most of us call allowing the tank to mature (working out the bugs). My suggestion to you at this point would be to just step back for a moment and dial in that puppy, and allow the various cycles to go through. with the use of NSW and previously cured rock it should not take as long as most starting with ASW and uncured rock. It will turn into a great tank just let it do what it needs to do.

hope it helps

Mike

[Theo A]

Sorry to bring this thread back up to the top, but I had to :D

My BTA Anemone just split. Yup, exactly 3 months after starting the tank, and approx 10 weeks after adding it, it's now 2. Well, actually, he was transfered into my new 46 bow 2 weeks ago, then he split

Both pieces seemed to hide away for a few hours. Last night I removed one piece, and added him to my new old tank (29gallon).

Anyhow, both pieces are back out and look to be doing great.

just an update :D

[slipknottin]

It seems to me your trying to brag about how your doing things incorrectly.

[Theo A]

I believe the seriousness of my post was overlooked.

If it's going so badly, can you explain why everything is growing?
Why would the BTA grow and split?

I moved the inhabitants of the 29 into the 46. Everything acclimated and is eating well.

[Flanders]

Not to rain on your parade (even though I find your lame gloating parade to be extremely annoying) but BTAs often split because they are stressed. In your case, the transfer into your new tank probably caused some temporary stress which made the anemone split. It doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong, but it doesn't mean you're a god either. You do have two anemones now, which is very cool.

Congratulations. Now shut up already and start posting like a normal person and quit this childish gloating. You're not impressing anyone. I'm sure everyone here will really, really appreciate an end to this lameness.

A good start would be a 'check out my new 46 gallon' thread in the reef discussion forum after everything gets settled. I'd be interested to see it.

[DgenR8]

While I can understand the negativity, please keep this in mind as you post to any thread here:
[flamealert]

Now, it is true that Anemones have been known to split as a self defense mechanism, it doesn't aleays mean they're happy. The way it was explained to me is that they somehow know that there's a better chance of one surviving, if there are two to start with.
Theo, I wish you luck, and I hope you are seeing a split as a result of a happy animal, I don't think you should be touting yourself as reef keeper of the year because of it. I honestly believe that if your BTA split because conditions are good, you are the rare exception to the rule, and your example is NOT one which people should follow.
Good luck, and I wish your animals well.

[vitz]

robert a. heinlein once wrote:

'there are 37 different ways to skin a cat'

now- please read carefully:p

a nano(20 long) about 2 months old, w/350 watts of 10k halide, good quality cured and established lr added from an older reef tank, a dsb in the sump, tunze skimmer...

2 t.r. skunk clowns, a 1" hippo tang (horrors!!!) a rainford's goby, a neon dottyback, redsea pulsing xenia, 2 blasto wellsi, briareum,pachyclavularia,capnella, cabbage coral, and a baby 2-3" green bta

hair algea cycle is just about done-pods are 'rampant':D

bristleworms, dusters, are everywhere, coralline is plating on rock-bta is just fine and dandy, and will be...

only additive is b-ionic

Ca and alk are all i test for, and all i really need to test for- my eyes tell me everything else i need to know

as a long time reefer, s.w. hobbyist, and 'professional';) , i'd just like to caution against all the 'absolute' statements i've read here-not one of us is a prophet, and there are at least 37 different ways to skin a cat

i've had customers setup tanks that were good enough after only 3 months for them to have blue devil damsels start to spawn in;)

the hippo will either be moved to a larger tank, or brought back to the lfs i work in- he is ultimately-just a wee bit mismatched for the 20;)

there are so many ways to 'push the envelope' in this hobby-just look at the recent explosion of nanos less than 2 gal, and the amazing success people have been having w/them-in spite of the fact that so many others said they were 'doomed to fail' right from the get go:rolleyes:

[DgenR8]

Vitz,
A 1" Hippo in a 20 long is not something I wish to argue. What I'd like to point out, is that you KNOW the fish has someplace to go when it outgrows the space you have allocated for it. Most of us don't have that luxury. Has your store ever turned away a fish from a hobbyist?
From experience, I know that big fish are not always welcomed back at LFSs. Hippos especially are not so pretty when they grow up. Kinda the ugly duckling thing in reverse. How many customers do you have that will buy a full grown Hippo, and have adequate space to house it? I truely suspect fewer than people will want to, or should be removing from their smaller tanks.

[cecilturtle]

I wrote some pages ago about me not fueling either side of this debate, but no one seems to have caught on to my message. Just the other day in my LFS the guy was feeding live fish to an Oscar. Even though they weren't as pretty as a Hippo Tang they were live nonetheless. I may be mistaken but I believe eels and Triggers are often fed this way too. My point being, in a closed enviroment, putting a rat with a snake in it is similar to putting a Hippo in a 20gal, albeit one will die quickly. All this and for what? The chance to say "Get him boy. Did you see that....damn he's fast!"

It is my belief that there are animals that we should not keep and there are also things that we should not do like hunt ducks and deer or fish for tuna and marlin but I see few people take up their cause. So why defend the Tang in particular? With the same token, why brag about putting a tang in a 20 gallon when you know it most likely will not do well? You guys are just goading each other. If you truly care about keeping a pet, you will most likely give it a good enviroment for it to do well. How one treats his pet is often how one treats himself and his family in general. If one is generally neglecting their pet, then chances are they are doing the same with other people or things in their life.

That being said, no matter the size of your tank or the choice of your fish, try to care for your pet in a conscientious manner...for it is often a reflection of YOURSELF.

[Theo A]

My tang was a baby in the 29

He's now in a 46 bow

In a few weeks, he'll be in a 75

He's about 2.5" at this point in time.

Ohh yea, new addition to the bow:

http://acceleratedperformance.net/images/46bow/butterfly.JPG

Was picky eater for the first day or 2. He now eats Sweetwater zooplankton like a pig.
Also eats Spirulina as well :D

[DgenR8]

Originally posted by cecilturtle
Just the other day in my LFS the guy was feeding live fish to an Oscar. Even though they weren't as pretty as a Hippo Tang they were live nonetheless. I may be mistaken but I believe eels and Triggers are often fed this way too. My point being, in a closed enviroment, putting a rat with a snake in it is similar to putting a Hippo in a 20gal, albeit one will die quickly. All this and for what? The chance to say "Get him boy. Did you see that....damn he's fast!"

I think you are comparing apples and oranges, Keeping a wild caught Hippo Tang in unsuitable living conditions, and feeding captive bred feeder fish to an Oscar just aren't the same thing.

It is my belief that there are animals that we should not keep and there are also things that we should not do like hunt ducks and deer or fish for tuna and marlin but I see few people take up their cause. So why defend the Tang in particular?

If people are eating these ducks, tuna or marlin, it's an example of the food chain in action. It doesn't compare in my mind to mistreating an animal you BUY as a PET. Hunting for "sport" is a horse of a different color, and I don't see that as "the right thing to do"



That being said, no matter the size of your tank or the choice of your fish, try to care for your pet in a conscientious manner...for it is often a reflection of YOURSELF.

Well put ;)

[DJ88©]

Originally posted by cecilturtle


That being said, no matter the size of your tank or the choice of your fish, try to care for your pet in a conscientious manner...for it is often a reflection of YOURSELF.

:thumbsup:

you have a pm

[vitz]

methinks you're all missing my point;)

i've read so many posts on this particular thread about anemones, and other things, that are being presented as absolute, definite, future knowledge as to how things will proceed in so-and-so's tank, when no one here really knows how anything will ever turn out;)


there are 37 ways (at least)to skin a cat ;)

[Aquaman]

there are 37 ways (at least)to skin a cat True but everyone of them result in a dead cat!


While its possable to setup a new tank and for it to cycle in 48 hours, Completely stock that tank within a few weeks and have that tank run fine for a year or more, This hobby has a way to humble even the best aquarist. Your decisions on inhabitants show a lack of research, perhaps not in what they need to survive but what they need to thrive! two very different words. I will not bash your success to date, but as a new hobbiest there are many, many things to learn and a ton of things that can go bad over night!

Even aquarist that have had tanks for years 10+ or more learn new things every day, and many learn the one hard fast rule of reefkeeping Nothing good happens quickly in a reef

[vitz]

Originally posted by Aquaman
True but everyone of them result in a dead cat!


While its possable to setup a new tank and for it to cycle in 48 hours, Completely stock that tank within a few weeks and have that tank run fine for a year or more, This hobby has a way to humble even the best aquarist. Your decisions on inhabitants show a lack of research, perhaps not in what they need to survive but what they need to thrive! two very different words. I will not bash your success to date, but as a new hobbiest there are many, many things to learn and a ton of things that can go bad over night!

Even aquarist that have had tanks for years 10+ or more learn new things every day, and many learn the one hard fast rule of reefkeeping Nothing good happens quickly in a reef


erm- not only are you wrong about my apparent lack of research, but you are also wrong about certain shorcuts being available, and working out, if one does know what one is doing

for the record, i've been keeping sw fish and inverts since the late seventies, keeping full blown minireefs since the late eighties, have bred damsels, and fragged softies since the mid nineties, and have been working as a 'pro' hobbyist, lfs manager, distributor, and jobber for about 20 yrs or so

;)

(i do think i know abit about what i'm talking about) ;)

[ChrisGar]

Who said that a fish can fit in a specific sized tank??? who has the right to judge that....???....a human being???????....absolutely not! Dont tell some one that a fish cannot be in a tank. There is no written, or proven laws to prove this. Only one that knows is GOD.

[DgenR8]

Originally posted by ChrisGar
Who said that a fish can fit in a specific sized tank??? who has the right to judge that....???....a human being???????....absolutely not! Dont tell some one that a fish cannot be in a tank. There is no written, or proven laws to prove this. Only one that knows is GOD.

Chris,
That's a ridiculous statement! There are Humans that have spent much of their lives studying fish, their habitats, and their behavior. I don't presume to know everything about ANY given species of fish, but I do trust certain experts to be able to tell me what the minimum requirements are for keeping a given fish.
I'll take scientific observation over faith in this case. God has yet to check in here with his minimum requirements for keeping Tangs, Scott Michael, while not checking in himself, has published his findings, and I respect what he says.

[ChrisGar]

Why are you mocking my statement. I dont appreciate your attack on my comment. You really shouldn't be disrespectful to my God, stating that he has not posted on your board. This statement is ridicuous. You are calling me ridiculous because I don't believe that humans know everything? Science is based on Hypothesis. I think maybe you dont know this!

[gregt]

[flamealert]

This forum is about reefkeeping, not religion. Let's keep on topic.

[ChrisGar]

Greg are you refering to my comment?

[gregt]

Originally posted by ChrisGar
Why are you mocking my statement. I dont appreciate your attack on my comment. You really shouldn't be disrespectful to my God, stating that he has not posted on your board. This statement is ridicuous. You are calling me ridiculous because I don't believe that humans know everything? Science is based on Hypothesis. I think maybe you dont know this!

This is exactly why we do not permit religious discussions on this board. Your original post opens a can of worms that this forum is not here to deal with. There are plenty of forums devoted to religious discussion that you can go to for that. Let's stick to your personal moral and ethical opinions and leave "your God" out of it so the rest of the 30,000+ members that may not share your opinion of what "God" is do not offend you in their responses.

I repeat. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Any further off topic discussion should be taken to PM or the feedback forum. Thank you.

[ChrisGar]

Gotcha....No Problem.

[Theo A]

Back to that origional topic....

I did see a small Diatom algae bloom a few weeks ago. Just small patches. From what I could tell, it was related to my feeding (or overfeeding). After I reduced the amount of food I was adding to my tank, and stopped sticking my hands in there to mess with it, it stopped growing. Took about a week to go away, now it's back to normal.

No other Algae to speak of so far, cept for a few pieces of bubble here and there.

[BonsaiNut]

What a long thread :) I don't recommend that anyone read the whole thing :) I think the content can be summarized by the following:

1) There are established rules for keeping reef tanks.

2) These rules are the cumulative "best practices" of the industry, and are an attempt to capture the best behaviors that can result in a healthy, stable reef tank.

3) Following these rules will give you a high chance of success with your reef tank.

4) Not following, ignoring, or changing some of these rules may reduce your chances for success.

5) There are always exceptions. However, unless you are very comfortable with keeping reef tanks, and have done so successfully in the past, we recommend you adhere to the rules.

6) Just because a new approach works for some people in some situations, does not make it the "best". "Best" is very relative in this hobby.

[Theo A]

Just an update...still going strong! All the SPS's Ive gotten are growing well and showing awesome coloration. Still havn't had those algae blooms yet either.

Pics coming

[flameangeljs]

Just wondered here why someone who has only had a tank for 6 months, but has upgraded twice during that time, does not think they have done water changes ?????
With my calculations, he did a 17 gallon water change in going from the 29 gallon up to the 46 gallon and then did another 26 gallon water change when he went up to the 75 gallon.

Adding NEW water in this manner, is the same as a water change !!!!

Now if one wants to start from the beginning and over a 6 month period, hmmmm- that is quite a lot of water being "changed".
As a 6 month old tank that has been moved twice into larger systems, there sure is no stability in anything yet.
But, if within the next 6 months, this tank keeps going as it has in the last, well it should be up to about 350 gallons and still wont be stable. But, all that new water, should have kept it from building up enough problems to crash.

Ok-yes, I do strongly side with the "slower and stable" method of reef keeping.

[MiddletonMark]

Yep, I'd think this thread would have continued with unbridaled success ... or at least photo updates.

But I'm a skeptic, and conservative with my precious reef creatures. Water changes, skimming ... nothing's too good for my critters :D

[Theo A]

sorry, my web server went up in price about 3 fold, so I cancelled it. Find me a place to host the pictures and I'll show you where I'm at now :D

although for not liking what I've done, how well it's turned out, or how much you just want this thread to "go away", you guys still find time to dig it up and post more :rolleye1:

[Flanders]

Your gallery on RC will host pics for free. It's what I use to post pics here. The size limitation is not great though.

[MiddletonMark]

I'm automatically notified of any new posts - so I'm not `digging it up' though someone is.

And you can always post pics on the thread, or any number of places host pics for free.

[DgenR8]

www.snapfish.com

[Theo A]

I wish I had a dime for everyone that posted like you just did and then came back 3 months later realizing how wrong they were.

8 months later...everything is going great :D


Here is another tank that has been started.... 1 week (Clowns from 29), Hippo and the rest are in a 75 reef now.

20L w/10gallon sump
96x2 Pc's
Mag 5 w/ sqwd



Greg...I'm still waiting for that algae bloom you promised.. lol...

[Flanders]

What you're doing with the NSW is fine, but I think you would be well served to get yourself into long-term thinking/planning mode. You just upgraded twice in eight months and have a fish that will still outgrow any of your tanks.

One other thought. Everybody here is a bit guilty of bragging or preaching on RC from time to time. You're guiltier than OJ.

[gregt]

I've never seen a healthy tank three months old not have a trace of coralline algae. There's something very fishy here and it's not the fish.

[MiddletonMark]

Yup. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Habib]

yes yes...because I'm just making this all up. It's all fantasy. But hey, apparently my fantasy works great. Weird how there are plenty of other people that do it the same way,. and it works for them too.

*NOTE* Posted during the Habib Clone wars.... ;) Author Theo A.

[MiddletonMark]

I guess we're all silly to ask for some sort of proof when something contradicts what's working for us.

It's been how many months now?

I'm sorry for being antagonistic, but I'd think you'd want to show off this amazing tank ... especially as people would love to see it. I think we're all interested, but when photos can't be produced, reason says be cynical.

[Theo A]

Ok....

My 20L has just been started. As in a week ago. It's got 2 clowns and a small green wrasse in it.

The hippo is in a 75, along with an orchid dottyback.

The 20L is the picture I just posted. When I get around to it, I'll take some pics of the 75 to show you.

I've had the same fish and corals for 8 or 9 months now. Mainly, they have been in a 46 Bow. I recently had a crack in the sump, nessicitating the new tank/sump upgrade to the 75. Since the 75 has just been setup (like last week), I didn't want to risk my nice corals with any die-off that might occur. Ammonia is at zero now, as well as Nitrite and Nitrate, so I should be moving my nice corals into the 75 this week :D :D.

I'll upload some photo's to my gallery if you are so inclined. I shut off my server 2 months ago, as they doubled their cost. I'll have to cut down my pictures, cause I don't generally take 50kb little ones :D

[knowse]

Sooooo.........Let me get this straight. You started with a 29, but had a 180 getting started, then moved to a 75, but also have 2 20L, just started another 75 and somewhere in the mix is a 46 bow front. All in 8-9 months?
Dudes, it's moot. The tang has been moved, the original tank is no more, and nothing is where it started. Doesn't sound like a success to me at all. Just seems to be moving stuff around and starting over.
Theo, quit moving things around, let it settle for a year and then come back and brag about it. ;)

[gregt]

Just seems to be moving stuff around and starting over.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. :)

[Habib]

Originally posted by Habib
yes yes...because I'm just making this all up. It's all fantasy. But hey, apparently my fantasy works great. Weird how there are plenty of other people that do it the same way,. and it works for them too.


I never posted the above but was someone during the "Habib clone experiment". :D


Can someone change the post to whom actually posted it or delete it?

TIA :)

[Theo A]

Hey Habib. VERY Weird

I posted that message in response to someone elses post. I was logged in under my name. At the welcome screen it even said Welcome TheoA

When I went to posts I was subscribed too, it showed your stuff I believe (New Jersey Reefers, etc..)
When I posted it I was under MY name.
When it showed up it showed under your name.

I have been unsuccsessful at editing it, as it says I didn't post it.

I tried to fix it, but it didn't cooperate. I have no clue as to why it did that.

[DJ88©]

Ohhhhh!!! now we know the author. Just as I tried to fix it. ;)

[Theo A]

Let me "break it down" for you really quick

I HAD a 180 ready to fire up. I never added water to it, and traded it up for a 220. I never started this either, as my future employer could call for me to move at ANY time. Moving the tank around was bad enough, I can only imagine what it would be like to break a 220 down and move it 1200 miles :D

My 29 Gallon was up and running for Approx 7 months. Was awesome, loved it! When I had to move recently, I decided since I was going to have to re-set it up, I might as well put everything in a bigger tank. Enter the 46. The 46 was short lived, as I came across a deal on a 75 and picked it up for $100 including pumps (Three mag 7's) Aqua-C Skimmer, etc...

The 75 is simply running right now until I have time to grab the rest of my corals. They are now in the tank after a quick cycle (72 hours I think this time) Everything there is doing wonderful as well.

The Contents (softies, bta, clowns, and a good portion of rock) came out of the 46 and went directly into the 20L. Water, rock, sand etc..

Same water that was in the 29, 46, now in a 20L. The 29 was setup and running for 7 months or so, and I never experianced any type of algae bloom at all. I did have a diatom prob (slight) when I went in to the 46, as I was apparently feeding too much (oops - 1.5 cubes a day)

Oh well, thats been my experiance so far. Been a great one and very rewarding as well.

[gregt]

A 7 month old tank with not a spec of coraline algae. There's something wrong there.

[DgenR8]

I have the strangest feeling of Deja Vu

[Theo A]

A 7 month old tank with not a spec of coraline algae. There's something wrong there.

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/26787Small_Tank_042.jpg

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/26787Small_Tank_040.jpg

There are some pics I found after 3 months. No coraline huh?
I suppose next there will be questions of water being in the tank :rolleyes:

But hey, it's kewl. 8000 posts must enable you to be able to undertstand exactly what will happen with my tank. Especially when you told me some time ago how it would crash in 3-4 months :D

I'll keep doing it the way it works. If it isn't broke, don't "fix" it

[gregt]

Yes, you keep going. Everyone else is a fool. Only you know how to keep a reef tank. Sorry, my 8,000 posts only mean I've been around long enough to know when I'm being snowed. :rolleyes:

[Theo A]

DEAR GOD! If what I'm doing is sooo wrong, and it is going to crash and burn without a doubt. Then why are you even wasting your time? Should you Mr. 9000 posts take the "high road" and go help someone instead of attempting to belittle and badger me?

I've never called anyone names. I've never pretended nor do I believe to posses enough knowledge to consider myself knowledgeable. I do know that what I've done seems to work

I know that I've seen a lot of pictures of tanks, and I have seen a LOT of tanks that look like crap.

I'll I did was talk about how I set my tank up. That was questioned. I then provided pictures. Now I'm "snowing" you?? Yea, thats it, I busted out the photoshop and added purple specks to everything in my tank. Get real man. And now all you can say is that? What highschool do you attend?

The entire reason I continue to post is simple. You came on this thread to basically tell me : "What you are doing won't work" In the past 8 months, it's worked great. I simply continue to remind you of this fact and apparently it makes you upset. Sorry if my way works for me.

I'll continue to update this thread on a monthly basis with pictures of the tank.

[gregt]

I'll continue to update this thread on a monthly basis with pictures of the tank.

Save your money....and the fish. Don't bother.

[Theo A]

Dude...my fish are fine man. Same with the corals. Dear lord...

[gregt]

Should you Mr. 9000 posts take the "high road" and go help someone instead of attempting to belittle and badger me?


The problem is that you refuse to learn from mistakes others have made because you are smarter than everyone else. People tried to help you on this thread, but you know better than all of them. Well, I've seen plenty of posters like you come and go. If I had a dime for every one that eventually came back and admitted they were wrong, I'd be rather wealthy.

It's far too easy to fake things to "prove us wrong". It really doesn't matter what you post in the future because you've already proved that you are doing nothing but playing a shell game. Every time someone points something out you magically have an answer for it that contradicts everything you've said before. You're a dime a dozen. Been there, done that.

Why am I bothering? Not for your sake, but for the sake of others that may read this thread and think you are for real.

[Theo A]

The problem is that you refuse to learn from mistakes others have made because you are smarter than everyone else. People tried to help you on this thread, but you know better than all of them.

Please show me.

I asked for help, all I got was "You can't put a BTA in a tank less than 6 months old"

I asked why, and was told, "because", and then I was ridiculed. Perhaps thats how it's done here.

One example in a long line of instances. Yes, shell games are what I'm playing, because it's so enjoyable to argue with someone like yourself over the internet. It's great, promotes this hobby in wonderful ways, and helps others to greatly understand what happens with the chemistry in a tank. I know I've learned a lot from yourself, especially when you tell me something like "no it won't work, but I can't explain it to you".

Maybe it's just my engineering background from college. But when someone has such a closed mind and simply say something won't work....well....

Anytime you are in daytona and you want to stop by and see the tank(s), just let me know. Perhaps we could talk face to face then?

[gregt]

If you really cared you'd read and learn why you shouldn't do things. The information is out there just look. Most people that are concerned about the animals in their care are willing to do some legwork and learn more about them rather than telling people that they are wrong when they try to help out.

Maybe it's just my engineering background from college. But when someone has such a closed mind and simply say something won't work....well....


You can't live without breathing. How about you prove me wrong on that one? :rolleyes: I have a VERY closed mind on that subject as well.

These are animals that live longer than you in nature. I wish you wouldn't try to prove experienced people wrong with their lives.

[Theo A]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere.

My water params seem to be fine by what I know, perhaps they arn't

Salinity - 1.024 Hydrometer
pH - 8.10-8.25 (Pinpoint)
dKh -
Calcium - 440
Ammonia - Zero
Nitrates - undetectable
Nitrites - undetectable

All kits are/were salifert.

Something I don't like is the way my calcium level seems to change. Perhaps I'm not dosing kalk the correct way. I mix it in a 5 gallon jug, let it settle, and then use the water above that.
It does seem that to keep the dKh and calcium in line, every few weeks I must either add some liquid CA or some alk buffer.

Perhaps you could shed some light on this subject.

AGain, I've NEVER said anyone was wrong. Questioning something isn't accusing someone of being wrong, it's trying to UNDERSTAND what they are saying. I'm interested in learning, hence the questioning. A lot of people don't care, which is why they simply say, OK, without attempting to understand.

[gregt]

Again, I've NEVER said anyone was wrong. Questioning something isn't accusing someone of being wrong, it's trying to UNDERSTAND what they are saying. I'm interested in learning, hence the questioning. A lot of people don't care, which is why they simply say, OK, without attempting to understand.

But you have. You went out and did it all despite the advice. What more could you do than that to say we are wrong than to ignore the advice and continually post that we are wrong as you have done? You've got some seriously big balls to try to claim you never said anyone was wrong.

The only good this thread has done is help someone else that may not know that it is a bad idea to do the things you have done. It certainly hasn't stopped you from stocking your tank too quickly with sensitive animals.

What do you think is wrong with your water parameters?

[Theo A]

Thanks again for the help.

I don't know if anything is wrong with my water params. From what I know, everything is ok. All the inhabitants seem to be fine, growning, etc... I've got so many more shrooms than I had when I started. And all of the corals have shown grown.

But you have. You went out and did it all despite the advice

btw, I HAD all this stuff when I started posting here. I didn't run out and get it when you said it couldn't be done. Yes, I did buy more tanks later, after the system I first used worked fine, but how can you blame me there ??

If someone told you you could jump off a bridge, and you knew nothing of physics, would you just do it, or would you ask why you could or couldn't???

The only good this thread has done is help someone else that may not know that it is a bad idea to do the things you have done

Please tell me WHY it was bad to do what I've done. Everything has survived, and grown. How can that be bad???
If you can tell me anything, tell me that!

[gregt]

If someone told you you could jump off a bridge, and you knew nothing of physics, would you just do it, or would you ask why you could or couldn't???
This isn't physics. These are living animals. This isn't a theoretical formula you can calculate. That's why we recommend playing it safe.


Please tell me WHY it was bad to do what I've done. Everything has survived, and grown. How can that be bad???
If you can tell me anything, tell me that!

First, I don't believe you. Nothing against you at all but if you are telling the truth 100% then you would be the first. There is no way to verify your claims, and they are very easy to fake. Not to long ago I had the same conversation with someone else and then went out and found evidence that they were lying. They fessed up and then the real story came out of the dozens of actual deaths that occurred. As Larry said, this is deja vu all over again. You may be telling the truth, but even if you are then you are nothing but lucky. You should feel no pride whatsoever in what you've done. None.

Experimenting with animals to prove people on the internet wrong is nothing to be proud of or to boast of on a monthly basis, IMO.

[Theo A]

OK, that makes more sense about your position.

No, I'm not lying. I'm a college grad that makes 7$ an hour. I certinly don't have enough money to go replacing fish and corals on a weekly basis.
You should feel no pride whatsoever in what you've done. None. umm.. ok.. So let me get this straight.
I check my water params, they test out where a health reef should be (according to your standards)
My fish, corals, and other inverts all grow, multiply, and look great
But because I did it in such a short time frame, for whatever reason, that has to be wrong. Ok.....

Asking why is trying to understand. Nothing more. If you took it another way then you shouldn't have.

Does the water chemistry lie? If I watch the ammonia go up, then down, and the nitrates and nitirites go up and down, has the tank not cycled?

Experimenting with animals to prove people on the internet wrong is nothing to be proud of or to boast of on a monthly basis, IMO. Man, you've got it all wrong. I could care less about what you think of me, my tank, or anything associated with my life. What I do care about is the fact that I've done something a little differently than you have. It's sad when the "old dog" can't be taught new tricks ehh? Things are ever changing, and evolving. So please don't tell me that I must wait a certin amount of time for something to happen, when proven scientific tests tell me the water is ok. Fish and inverts that have been alive in my care for 10 months have grown and propagated.

If you are going to tell me I have to wait, then for crying out loud, tell me WHY.

Pics WILL follow, as apparently you can't simply take someones word for it.

Besides, it will allow me to see the growth of my stuff on a monthly basis :D

Pm me next time you are around this area. Come check the stuff out

I've wasted enough of my time tonight trying in vain to explain my reasoning with you. When someone asks WHY, you simply come back with something else. Instead of trying (poorly) to come back with another way of spinning your story, Hows about you put your 9000 post knowledge to use and

EXPLAIN SOMETHING :D

[vitz]

there are 37 different ways ti skin a cat

[DgenR8]

Assuming that you have been 100% upfront, added everything in the timeframe you say, not replaced dead animals, not photoshopped pics, or posted pics of others' tanks, there's always someone that wins the multi million dollar lottery.
*IF* your case is true, it's a fluke, just like the person that picked the right combination of 6 numbers, you have had an episode of extreme luck.
Anyone reading this and thinking they can duplicate what you claim to have done, should get a reality check.

[Theo A]

Here is one of the tanks of the Guy that showed me how to do what I've done. Hows about you comment on that tank? I wish he'd post pictures of his 100, it's 8 times better than this one.

btw : That leather was about 2" tall when he got it less than a year ago.


http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/1/24139Full_Tank_Growth.JPG

HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM................

[greg s]

hey chk my gallery, i'm a "tank stuffer"......you might call
911 on me!!!

[DgenR8]

I find it not only interesting, but irresponsible to post this thread in a forum named "RESPONSIBLE REEFKEEPING"
AND Greg S, I can't for the life of me figure out why you'd want to put youself in the spotlight here, unless your only purpose on this BB is to troll.

[greg s]

troll?? no nothing to get all upset about...i keep 4 tangs in a
60 gal...and some r/c's say that i must treat these fish (and the
other 8 or so that i keep) in a bad way...so i finally got
a pick of my tank on r/c...so check it out...sorry didnt want
to ruffle feathers w/ anyone..greg

[greg s]

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=21046&papass=&sort=1&thecat=500

[gskidmor]

I find it a bit amusing how upset people get about this tang topic. I have yet to find any credible research anywhere, at the university that I teach, at the university that I attended for undergrad, or the university that I attended for my graduate degrees, that states it is unethical to keep tangs in a tank less than 100 gallons. Despite what everyone on this thread keeps saying, I would be willing to bet a lot of $$ that there are a bunch of people here doing just that. I know of quite a few people that successfully keep multiple tangs, and have done so for years (11 years in one case) in tanks of size 55 on up. Is there any research that states this, or is it all just belief? And I'm not looking for such things as a tangs range in the ocean since that argument I believe would prevent us from keeping all but a handful of fish.

[gregt]

I find it amusing that you'd expect to find "ethical" data at a university, but let's not digress. How much time have you spent observing the animals? I've spent hundreds of hours observing them in their natural habitat, in large aquariums (greater than 1000 gallons) and in small aquariums. I can tell you that it does not take an expert to tell that they behave very differently in these different environments. It is also very easy to tell which fish are stressed and to make correlations to tank size from that data.

[gskidmor]

Well that is good. I've never written a paper on a biological subject, but couldn't you and maybe a couple of other people present something to a peer reviewed journal that states some statistics about differences in life expectancy and other overall indicators of health to finally put an end to this debate. The only data we have is a few people that have stated they think it is unethical based on this and that while the other side replies with the argument that they're currently doing it successfully or know someone that has/is, but if we have something a little more concrete, it's harder to argue with. We all know there will be the outlier cases were someone can keep them alive for a longtime (> 5 yrs) in a 30 gallon, but that would be the statistical anomaly.

[nanocat]

FWIW, there are people completely new to the hobby (like me) who read this entire thread and had no problem at all recognizing Theo and his "advice" and "experience" for the fantasy that it is.

While I don't subscribe to a mandatory or "fixed" number of days before a tank is cycled, or stable, I sure don't think anyone who advocates throwing in a full load of livestock and inverts ASAP is acting wisely.

Like I read a dozen times on a dozen boards, "good things happen slowly, bad things happen fast". Since I'm not into the theory that there's some massive "reef conspiracy" faction out there on multiple forums, just dying to lie to us all....I think I'll just be the wiser and learn from collective experience.

BTW, did we ever hear why Theo's tanks had no corraline? LOL.

[Theo A]

BTW, did we ever hear why Theo's tanks had no corraline? LOL

That pic was 3 months old guy.....

I was never providing advice, I was sharing my experiance. Why must people get caught up in the old way of doing things, instead of opening their minds to new ideas....

I don't see you commenting on my friends tank above... Have anything negative to say about that one???

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by nanocat
FWIW, there are people completely new to the hobby (like me) who read this entire thread and had no problem at all recognizing Theo and his "advice" and "experience" for the fantasy that it is.


Nicely stated, nanocat.

I think we're both in reefing for the long-term goals. Having 3 corals [4-5 years old] from a nano to start my big tanks with ... it's nice to hear those who are thinking about caring for these critters for the long haul - and seeing the amazing growth and health of these long-lived creatures.

Thus waiting a little extra to have a totally stable mini-ecosystem in our tanks is a piece of cake. To me `proof' of a system is in it's long-term ability to be stable and healthy for critters. One can do any number of things for a short period of time, and have it `work' so to speak. But over the long haul, that's the real test.

As for Theo's buddy's tank ... well, one shot of a nice tank just doesn't `prove' anything. We don't know the full specs about it, and frankly, claims in how it's done don't cut it for me. I think long-term pics of Theo's setup will tell the story. We have no idea on how this tank was set up, if it followed any of the `traditional rules' ... and to be honest, some people can `break the rules' and have success. They're just very rare, and often aren't trying for some of the critters I'm most interested in.

Anyway, this discussion hasn't really taught me anything, other than reinforce that some folks don't consider their tank's life/inhabitants to be that precious. I follow the `rules' because I want to house my critters for a decade, and thus patience in setting up, water changes, and other common practices have been demonstrated time and again to yield these long-term results I desire.

[Flanders]

We asked for a photo of your tank, not your friend's.

[Theo A]

I did post a pic of it in my gallery, and in the above post. I posted the pic of my friends tank, as he was the one that showed me how to set up my tank. I think his results are pretty good as well huh?

[Flanders]

We know nothing about his tank and as such have no way to judge his results. I repeat that we STILL haven't seen a photo of your tank. You posted a photo of a new tank you set up, not an established aquarium.

All you've done so far is bait and switch. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt but I'm beginning to think you're totally full of ****.

[greg s]

what about the pic's in his gallery?

[greg s]

i heard one time that a damsel fish can patrol a 25' foot
area on the reef...i always think back to that during these
tang 911 forums...

[gregt]

greg, there is a huge difference in behavioural patterns between a damsel and a tang.

If you want to do this to your pets, then so be it, but don't encourage others to do it.

[greg s]

encourage others? when was i tring to do that?
..."huge difference in behavioural patterns between a damsel and a tang."...very true my yellow damsel is more aggrisive, then
all my tangs...you people on here claim this is animal abuse to keep tangs...(in a smaller than 150 gal) so why is it diff. for a damsel that normally gets a 25' area? is it b/c its price is much less? ? ?
i dont see this provided for this animal...in fact most people
buy them as "starter fish" but no one cares about that...
my point is the same as always...these fish can be keep
healthy and happy in a smaller tank....greg

[gregt]

buy them as "starter fish" but no one cares about that...

It's impossible to argue with you because you don't really have a point other than to argue.

You obviously don't bother to read anything many of us have posted a million times. Many of us consistently post that it is not necessary to use live fish to cycle a tank.

But, I'm CERTAIN you'll find something else to troll about. :rolleyes: Give me yet another reason why it's ok to do whatever your want. I'm sure you have a million more left. It'll give us fodder to educate those that actually read the threads for information rather than to get their kicks by trolling.

[greg s]

troll about??? ok...if you remember i asked about
Theo A's, pictures in the gallery...then you tld me i was encouraging people....after i made a comment about
a damsel and there natural protrolling area's...
so please tell me how i'm here to fight w/ you???
you have said this, that, and the 3rd about Theo A tank...
now it seams you are tring to switch the focus on me...
but you are right, you are full of knowledge, and wonderful
things to say..... LOL!!

[greg s]

Originally posted by gregt
It's impossible to argue with you because you don't really have a point other than to argue.


it seams you are confussed, are we here to ague?
by that quote i wonder who is the TROLLER as you would put it..greg

[greg s]

does anyone have picture of a Gem Tang? i have heard
they are in the 1500$ range...anyone have one, or know
more about them?

[nanocat]

Originally posted by greg s
i dont see this provided for this animal...in fact most people
buy them as "starter fish" but no one cares about that...
....greg

That's where you would be completely wrong. It is because reefers cared enough to point out the unfairness of this practice, that I (as a newbie) was able to realize it was not necessary.

That's why it's so important that the information given here should be what is the most likely good outcome/safe advice, not the exceptional result that one person claims to have.

Will a damsel survive the conditions of a new tank?, probably. Is it a good thing to do?, probably not. It's silly to make the comment you did. Any research at all would have shown you that is not correct. It sort of makes me wonder how much learning you've even put into reefing? I learned that in the first week ;)

[greg s]

gregt,
Great dive pic's...any of your tank?

[gregt]

http://www.saltyzoo.com/180/whole-tank-ani.gif

[MiddletonMark]

Greg, what's that huge coral on the left when you first start the rotation?

And NICE coralline coverage ... what a mature tank should look like :D

Maybe you can give a link ... or else a short bio of your tank? Looks like either you have some amazingly thriving/growing corals, or it's been around a while [no doubt, both].

But I'd love to hear about a few of those prize corals I see in there ...

[gregt]

I'd love to talk about my tank, but let's not hijack this thread any further than it already has been. ;)

[MiddletonMark]

Just figured maybe a good example would be nice to point out at this time ... just let me know if you're ever talking about your tank.

I like to learn about doing things right ... and that seems like a tank worth mimicing :D

[gregt]

Feel free to start another thread with your questions and post a link here. I've made plenty of mistakes, including keeping tangs in a tank that was too small. ;) So, I'd be glad to try to help others avoid them.

[MiddletonMark]

Ok Greg, I've started a `requested TOTM' thread for your tank at:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=294046

And I'll leave this thread back to TheoA's tank/tanks. I apologize for any thread hijacking ... now back to regularly scheduled programming :D

[greg s]

nanocat...i'm talking in regards to my orginal post
(and the reason why i got pulled in to this tang b.s..) is that
in nature even a 2$ damsel has a huge area that it
calls home....and the same goes for the tang...and
we spend a lot of time and effort fighting over
the fact about how many tangs, per. gallon we can
and cant keep...when the fact is..its trial and error...
anything can happen...did you eat a burger today?
now i know thats stupid...but its the truth, people
on these tang 911 forums get out of control....calling
people like my self a "bad person" for keeping tangs to
-gether...and dont you feel bad for your fish?? NO...NO...
i dont..i love my fish...so this is just "IMO" but i think
you should be open to more ideas on forums like this...
and not trash people for what works(@ there house LOL)..greg

[gregt]

Your facts are greatly skewed. A damsel may roam that far on occasion, but it's territory is much smaller. It is very rare for a typical damsel to go more than a few feet from it's "home". However, tangs range constantly across miles of territory. They do not even have a "home" base as damsels do.

Thanks again for allowing me to set the record straight. :) Next?

[greg s]

Originally posted by gregt
Well, I'm in the middle of setting up a bigger better system and all my coral and fish from that tank are now crammed into my growout / holding system in a most unfashionable way. :( I hope to get the new system online in the next month or two but it has proven to be a bigger job than I expected...







yea i would take the advice of this guy...practice what
you preach, buddy...you sure like to fuel the fire for a
"r/c admin" LOL!!!

[Flanders]

OK, I can't even believe I'm replying to this drivel, but here goes: People argue about acceptable tank sizes for tangs because, one, they are desirable reef aquarium inhabitants and two, they are some of the largest growing, fastest swimming fish commonly kept.

People do not typically argue about acceptable tank sizes for damsels because they are not generally desirable reef aquarium inhabitants (too aggressive, get less attractive as they grow) and they simply don't swim anywhere near as fast or as far in the wild as tangs.

However, I agree that many who keep damsels keep them in tanks that are too small and are unaware of the adult size of these fish. A trip to a public aquarium is a wakeup call, you'll see how big some damsels really get.

greg, I think the only reason you're arguing is you're trying to justify keeping the fish you have. If you think "winning" this argument is going to allow you to do that -- that and a shoehorn, I guess, your gallery pics are pretty amazing -- I'm sorry to inform you that it won't.

And I think greg's (the mod's) idea of cramming his fish and coral into his growout system doesn't even vaguely resemble what you've got going on there.

[gregt]

Ok, time to take your foot out of your mouth now. I have one. Count 'em. One fish per tank. That's it. My growout system is 200 gallons in volume and consists of six seperate tanks hooked together. And... I don't even own a tang at all. The biggest swimmer I have is a coral beauty.

The coral is crammed in, but they are quite safe and have plenty of room as they don't move around much. :rolleyes: They are in tanks based on aggressiveness so that they will not hurt each other.

I do appreciate your concern however. Too bad you don't have it for your own animals.

You ready to quite the nonsense yet, or shall we continue?

[greg s]

so why do you act like you care for tangs so much
if you dont even own one? and you quote
says coral and fish...so you only have one?
any one can type what ever they want...your
telling me your sump is 200 gallons..but that
pic was your main tank? wow a systm w/
what over 350 gallons...with one coral beauty...ok
buddy [edited]...6 seperate tanks...
are they 33 gal each? do you have a pic of your set up...
you sure tlk alot...i want to see now!!! you say in the
other forum you run vho b/c no chiller...well w/ a 150
gallon main tank and 200 gal. sump..i would think you would
have to worry about that? ? ? hmm guy your not giving
me any reason to listen to you...you dont even own a tang?
lol...your great...i want to be a "r/c admin" when i grow up..

[gregt]

Just keep digging yourself deeper eh? Some people just don't learn. You are wrong and will not admit it.

I have owned tangs, I learned the hard way. The important part though is that I learned. Also, I work at a pulic aquarium that has probably oh, maybe 2 or 3 hundred of them at least in aquariums ranging from 400 to 500,000 gallons!!!!

I also dive heavily and observe them in their natural environment. So yes, I think I do have a little experience in the subject. How about you. Do you have any experience keeping these fish in an appropriate environment? Do you have the slightest clue how they SHOULD act?

[gregt]

As for the rest of your insane post, none of it is clear enough for me to understand what your problem is. My fish and corals are quite healthy and my tanks well maintained. Again I thank you for your concern.