Weird thought on Nitrate problems

[blasterman]

Or, maybe I'm weird.

 

Anyways, I've noticed a particular trend with tanks that have nitrate issues -vs- those that don't, even though both appear to have similiar bio-loads and nutrient intake. You know, one guy with a 30gal full of fish and 5ppm of nitrate and 5% monthly water changes, and the other guy with one damsel in his 120gal, heavy water changes and never getting lower than 40ppm (much to their deserved aggravation). We'll assume test kits are accurate, ahem.

 

What I've noticed is that tanks that have the nitrate problem often seem to be the ones that are stocked heavily and quickly after they cycle. Soon there's a cyano and algae blooms and the typical new tank syndromes, but it seems that once the high nitrate cycle is started it's nearly impossible to fix.

 

However, I've noticed that tanks that are established with LR and low bio loads for a long time, and then fish are slowly added to reach the same bioload seem to be the ones with fewer nitrate problems.

 

Yeah, garbage in = garbage out, but I just noticed this might be a pattern and perhaps something to do with the establishment of bacteria in the tank. Any comments?

[scythe]

Or, maybe I'm weird.

 

Anyways, I've noticed a particular trend with tanks that have nitrate issues -vs- those that don't, even though both appear to have similiar bio-loads and nutrient intake. You know, one guy with a 30gal full of fish and 5ppm of nitrate and 5% monthly water changes, and the other guy with one damsel in his 120gal, heavy water changes and never getting lower than 40ppm (much to their deserved aggravation). We'll assume test kits are accurate, ahem.

 

What I've noticed is that tanks that have the nitrate problem often seem to be the ones that are stocked heavily and quickly after they cycle. Soon there's a cyano and algae blooms and the typical new tank syndromes, but it seems that once the high nitrate cycle is started it's nearly impossible to fix.

 

However, I've noticed that tanks that are established with LR and low bio loads for a long time, and then fish are slowly added to reach the same bioload seem to be the ones with fewer nitrate problems.

 

Yeah, garbage in = garbage out, but I just noticed this might be a pattern and perhaps something to do with the establishment of bacteria in the tank. Any comments?

 

In theory I agree, scientifically well, i dot know enough to pass that judgement. Methodology i also agree, 3 months in my tank, no cyano, big diatoms, or algae outbreak. I added alot of LR and waited, only have a couple small frags of zoa's and a mushroom. Nitrate was almost nil through out cycle and still continues to be zero every time I test. I do about 1.5 gallon water change every sunday. I had a little patch of hair algae starting to form but my troch quickly took care of it. My main rule with this thing is patients and it seems to be paying off because i am not seeing the algae out breaks.

[doctaq]

maybe the correlation is experience, i doubt its bacteria

 

bacteria will grow according to thier needs until an equilibrium is reached, in this case the need for the bacteria you may be talking about is lack of oxygen and nitrate, the number would increase with the amount of nitrate produced. two tanks of the same age and exact same setup, even the rocks have to be the same shape and size, the one with more nitrates to begin with will have more nitrate consuming bacteria.

 

on the other hand, if the person either has been keeping a reef for a long time or has researched a lot and they both go slowly, they will both put less livestock in thier system, have better feeding practices, better water change regularity, use RODI, ect. not to say that if you have high nitrates you arent doing these things though.