Inherited an Overstocked, Disgusting Tank!

[Seadragon]

5 minutes ago, mfield16 said:

@Seadragon Do you have a pic of the Chaeto / magnet setup? I browsed your office tank thread but must've missed that.

 

Sure, here we go, Chaeto and the magnetic clip is on the bottom right side:

 

And here on the bottom left side:

 

There's also some Chaeto growing beneath the Pom Pom Xenia in the 2nd picture.  I actually remove it every now and then and eventually it comes back like that so it does grow.

[Clown79]

8 minutes ago, Seadragon said:

Better yet, I'll give you just 1 of the 49,400 links for your reading pleasure:

 

"Xenia, as many of you are well aware, is a terrific nutrient exporter. To be exact its around 500% more effective then macroalgae at removing nutrients from your aquarium.
Alot of people don't keep xenia strictly because it can quickly reproduce and overgrow a tank and other corals. Especially in a tank with large amounts of DOCs xenia can quickly get out of hand on your rock work and pose issues for your tank. You can prune it just like you would a macroalgae, however this can get troublesome as every little head which sneaks away via the water column and finds a nice little nook will sprout itself into a new tree.
From personal Exp and conversations with friends, Ive found a nifty way to grow xenia safely in your aquarium without worrying about pruning or dealing with real estate issues in and on your rock work while all the time enjoying the nutrient exporting ability of this nifty coral.
My father, (at one point and time), actually plumbed a main reef display into a secondary 30 gallon reef which was completely a xenia forest. The nutrient exporting capabilites was outstanding. The main issue being the large amount of food which was having to be fed to supply enough food to maintain both the coral in the main display + the entire secondary tank of xenia. This became an issue which had more risks then rewards and my dad quickly went back to a fuge.
Rather then growing your Xenia on your rock, why not grow it on your glass? Its out of the way of other corals, cannot block light, cannot take up real estate, and still serves the purpose to export excess nutrients from the water column. Its not difficult in any way, all it requires is a little scrubbing with a toothbrush every other day. Xenia usually attaches fairly quickly to whatever object its placed next to, if you have a frag available and can suspend it horizontally against the glass safely without it falling for an extended period, then eventually it will attach itself to the glass and voila, you are good to go. Simply seek out any little xenia sprouts and scrub them off the rock with a clean toothbrush every now and again when you see them sprouting up and you are good to go.
If you already have Xenia in your tank and simply wish to know how to get it to grow on your glass so you can completely remove it from your rock, then this is how. I personally left at least 2 healthy trees on my rocks at all times without any pruning being done during the glass growing process. The other trees I cut, pruned, and scrubbed with a toothbrush until only a small amount of the trees remained on the rock. Eventually a spore you scrub off will attach to the glass and begin to grow. When you think it is of adequate size and definitely going to survive, then you can simply completely remove the rest of the trees on your rock. Congratulations, you now have a small forest growing on your glass which is pretty and serves a purpose.
Just an idea to throw out there for everyone." Source: https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/index.php?threads/using-xenia-as-nutrient-exporter-tips-hints-on-growing-and-placement.383738/

 

You seem to only believe info that pertains to your particular research and set ups while refuting all other research, experiences, and studies.

 

 

I will not be engaged in a who's "right", "my experience is more valid" conversation/argument.

 

To the OP. Do a lot of detailed research and come up with a conclusion that best meets your needs.

 

[mfield16]

Just now, Clown79 said:

To the OP. Do a lot of detailed research and come up with a conclusion that best meets your needs.

 

Copy that! I appreciate the back and forth though! 

 

1 minute ago, Seadragon said:

 

Sure, here we go, Chaeto and the magnetic clip is on the bottom right side:

 

Thanks! Just a clip. I was thinking something more intricate. K.I.S.S.!

[Garf]

The two clowns should be fine in the 13.5  You should be able to add another smaller fish, but unfortunately the list of livestock you have there is limiting. If you had to keep one, I would think the larger/less shy firefish, but even then, who knows what your clowns will do to it when they get bigger.  

 

To address the large bioload until your can get them to your buddy, do frequent smaller water changes (less stress on fish) and vacuum the detritus off the sand. Add in a cleanup crew as soon as you can, perhaps buying more than you need and getting your buddy to split the pack.

 

 

[Seadragon]

2 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

You seem to only believe info that pertains to your particular research and set ups while refuting all other research, experiences, and studies.

 

I will not be engaged in a who's "right", "my experience is more valid" conversation/argument.

 

To the OP. Do a lot of detailed research and come up with a conclusion that best meets your needs.

 

5 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

It's made no difference to nutrient levels in or out of my tanks.

 

My tanks have the same nutrient levels.

 

1 has dragons breath and a crap ton of xenia, the other had neither.

 

 

There is a lot of info on forums that isn't exactly proven but belief.

 

Like xenia like low light and high nutrients. 

 

It actually grows even in low nutrient tanks and loves light.

 

The pumping action only occurs in low flow areas.

 

Just like the theory that palytoxin only exists in paly's and zoas. Scientific research has proven that a lot of soft corals have palytoxin, xenia being on that list.

 

That's not true at all.  I have a philosophy in life.  "Try everything at least once" within reason.  I did my research and I tried macroalgae and Xenia and it's working fine for me.  I believe that you had issues and you have your reasons.  I know you want me to find some scientific evidence to back-up my claim which you'll just refute with "well, it didn't work for me!", but I'm not actually trying to change your mind, I'm only stating what works for me and why I believe it is.  The most evidence you gave me was "people on the forums", while I'm giving you actual links of thousands of other peoples' experiences which you can see for yourself.

 

It should not be hard to believe that any coral that grows fast has to be using up nutrients within the water.  How else is it growing so fast, magic?

[mfield16]

CUC is on the way. Unfortunately I did not buy more than I needed. Great idea though. Too late!

[Clown79]

15 minutes ago, mfield16 said:

CUC is on the way. Unfortunately I did not buy more than I needed. Great idea though. Too late!

It's a good idea to add as needed because they can starve and die

[Clown79]

33 minutes ago, Seadragon said:

 

That's not true at all.  I have a philosophy in life.  "Try everything at least once" within reason.  I did my research and I tried macroalgae and Xenia and it's working fine for me.  I believe that you had issues and you have your reasons.  I know you want me to find some scientific evidence to back-up my claim which you'll just refute with "well, it didn't work for me!", but I'm not actually trying to change your mind, I'm only stating what works for me and why I believe it is.  The most evidence you gave me was "people on the forums", while I'm giving you actual links of thousands of other peoples' experiences which you can see for yourself.

 

It should not be hard to believe that any coral that grows fast has to be using up nutrients within the water.  How else is it growing so fast, magic?

I don't provides all the links to everything I have researched and read over 10yrs. I am not sitting online for hrs to prove things when others 

can do their own research. Using Google and the search function on here is easy for everyone to do

 

 

If we all believed everything on the forums

 

We wouldn't have nano tanks, we would still be running systems with 0 nutrients, only halides can grow corals, bristle worms are killers, etc etc. 

[Seadragon]

21 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

I don't provides all the links to everything I have researched and read over 10yrs. I am not sitting online for hrs to prove things when others 

can do their own research. Using Google and the search function on here is easy for everyone to do

 

 

If we all believed everything on the forums

 

We wouldn't have nano tanks, we would still be running systems with 0 nutrients, only halides can grow corals, bristle worms are killers, etc etc. 

 

That's the spirit.  Go do your own research and use google with the search function.  Why even ask others to provide proof.

[Clown79]

16 minutes ago, Seadragon said:

 

That's the spirit.  Go do your own research and use google with the search function.  Why even ask others to provide proof.

That is the spirit.

Not everyone has the time to sit there and do hours of research for others posting pages of links when they are readily available.

 

People should be doing their own research, it's how you learn. Its 1 of the things we recommend for a very valid purpose.

 

I spend a lot of time on Nano helping others 15,738 posts- the majority of those posts is  helping others.

 

 

[Seadragon]

9 minutes ago, Clown79 said:

That is the spirit.

Not everyone has the time to sit there and do hours of research for others posting pages of links when they are readily available.

 

People should be doing their own research, it's how you learn. Its 1 of the things we recommend for a very valid purpose.

 

I spend a lot of time on Nano helping others 15,738 posts- the majority of those posts is  helping others.

 

 

 

I 100% agree with that.

 

Still ❤️ Chaeto too. 😉

[FISHnChix]

Just to add my 2 cents. I too believe that running a macro like cheato in a nano tank is not a good idea for 90 percent of nano reefers.. simply cheato is too damn good at removing phos and nitrate and will most like deplete your system of nutrients.. will it lead to dinos? I dunno in my experience it will just die first and your nutrients will go back up, but maybe if you kept adding it after it dies it could deplete your levels enough to encourage dino growth..🤷‍♂️.

 

 

I would only run macro if I had a super heavy feeding demand that led to constant high nutrients like maybe a sea horse tank or a tank heavily stocked with nps coral... 

[Seadragon]

2 minutes ago, FISHnChix said:

cheato is too damn good at removing phos and nitrate

God bless Chaeto.

[A.m.P]

...
Nitrate and Nitrite are both exceedingly benign in saltwater systems due to the nature of actual, real, chemistry.
There are reef systems with 100+ Nitrate levels, WWC has a display which is over 50 and full of SPS.

However there are still too many fish in that tank, you've been pointed in the correct direction for rehoming, the sponges and such from the older filter systems are just detritus traps and nitrate factories.

Skimmers don't lower nutrients they prevent them by removing organics from the water column, both carbon and skimmers -alongside select biological-export such a benthic sponges - also remove organic carbons which otherwise dead-end and accumulate in our systems.

There's not much to say past a simple point, be careful about googling exactly the question you want to ask and only looking for the answers you want to see. I would try to find some published books, trusted websites and sources, or extremely-experienced and well-known/trusted individuals within the reefkeeping community and get your information from/emulate them. 
Google has spent an inordinate amount of time ensuring that, if you ask any question, you will find the answer you are looking for, it's only recently -due to interventions from movements like "Time Well Spent"- that Silicon Valley has started to consider providing people with correct answers instead of what will keep them on webpages longer.

[Seadragon]

14 minutes ago, Amphrites said:

Nitrate and Nitrite are both exceedingly benign in saltwater systems due to the nature of actual, real, chemistry.
There are reef systems with 100+ Nitrate levels, WWC has a display which is over 50 and full of SPS.

 

I wouldn't recommend to anyone that reef systems with over 100+ PPM Nitrate levels is safe.  A lot of test kits and websites state it's unsafe once you start surpassing 80+ PPM for Nitrates.  As for Nitrite levels, it's stressful to the tank inhabitants from 1-3 PPM, and then becomes dangerous at 5+ PPM.

 

If you want to take the risk and pose harm or death to your tank inhabitants, that's fine, but I wouldn't recommend having any Nitrites or 80+ PPM for Nitrates to anyone, let alone beginners to the hobby.  I think that's just wrong and can lead to a tank crash eventually.

[Tamberav]

I would get the chocolate star to the LFS, if it perished, that would be a lot of dying tissue in a small tank. 

 

Whether the fish are in danger or not depends on if your new rock and old filter can reliably process ammonia. Under normal conditions, you would probably end up with a field of GHA if nutrients rise.....which would keep the nutrients well in acceptable range for fish. 

 

Oxygen can be another potential hazard. If the power went out or a breaker tripped, a small overstocked tank will certainly run out of oxygen faster. Things to be wary of until you can re-home the fish.

[mfield16]

Update: All fish survived, are eating, and seemingly doing well. 

 

Only the clowns remain, the starfish went to the LFS, who traded me for a hermit. The others went to a buddy nearby. The old HOB filter and old sponge are gone as well. Thanks again for the help. 

[A.m.P]

On 1/13/2020 at 8:24 PM, Seadragon said:

 

I wouldn't recommend to anyone that reef systems with over 100+ PPM Nitrate levels is safe.  A lot of test kits and websites state it's unsafe once you start surpassing 80+ PPM for Nitrates.  As for Nitrite levels, it's stressful to the tank inhabitants from 1-3 PPM, and then becomes dangerous at 5+ PPM.

 

If you want to take the risk and pose harm or death to your tank inhabitants, that's fine, but I wouldn't recommend having any Nitrites or 80+ PPM for Nitrates to anyone, let alone beginners to the hobby.  I think that's just wrong and can lead to a tank crash eventually.

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.htm
 

[Seadragon]

32 minutes ago, Amphrites said:

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.htm
 

I understand nitrites aren’t as lethal in saltwater as it is in freshwater, but there’s a lot of information out there on this by a lot of global companies that I don’t think would intentionally lie to their customers.  Here’s one example out of countless...

 

”In a healthy reef aquarium nitrite and ammonia are consumed by the bacteria, providing and maintaining a very low, steady concentration in an established reef tank. The ideal concentration of nitrite in a reef aquarium is less than 0.2 ppm or 200 ppb. Nitrite levels above this value may weaken sensitive fish and corals. The Hanna Marine Ultra Low Range Nitrite Checker HC HI764 is a compact and portable meter that measures from 0-200 ppb (µg/L), which is ideal for the range nitrite is found in established reef aquariums.”

Source: https://blog.hannainst.com/how-to-test-nitrate-in-saltwater-aquarium

 

The main issue with allowing Nitrates to sky rocket out of control without having some sort of a nutrient exporter would be something called Old Tank Syndrome that eventually leads to a tank crash.  I’m not even saying that Nitrates are bad, but having too much of anything in life (excess) is usually not a good thing.
Source: https://m.liveaquaria.com/article/214/?aid=214

 

[Matteo]

*

Edited January 27, 2020 by Matteo
Not worth it

[jservedio]

On 1/13/2020 at 5:13 PM, FISHnChix said:

Just to add my 2 cents. I too believe that running a macro like cheato in a nano tank is not a good idea for 90 percent of nano reefers.. simply cheato is too damn good at removing phos and nitrate and will most like deplete your system of nutrients.. will it lead to dinos? I dunno in my experience it will just die first and your nutrients will go back up, but maybe if you kept adding it after it dies it could deplete your levels enough to encourage dino growth..🤷‍♂️.

 

 

I would only run macro if I had a super heavy feeding demand that led to constant high nutrients like maybe a sea horse tank or a tank heavily stocked with nps coral... 

Absolutely - while chaeto is just another way to skin your nutrient cat, once your tank actually matures you likely just won't have a cat problem. There is a good reason most very mature tanks on here have almost no filtration and don't have a fuge.

On 1/13/2020 at 5:15 PM, Seadragon said:

God bless Chaeto.

I'll add another data point - my tank won't support chaeto, it'll just wither away and die like all other green algaes. I've got no filtration in my tank at all and only do smaller water changes every 3-6 weeks. I've got two big clowns that are over 10 years old and an 8 year old melanurus wrasse in just 20g that get fed at least once a day. My only CuC is two hermits, a turbo, an astrea, and 1 or 2 nassarius.

 

My tank is pushing 10 years old so it's got tens of thousands of feather dusters, vermetid snails, sponges of all sorts, tunicates, tiny critters, and 90% of the square footage on my rocks is covered with established and healthy coral or anemones. Even with this lack of maintenance, heavy stocking/feeding, and skeleton CuC my tank is lower than I would like for nutrients. The reason for this is just that all of the organics are pulled from the water column before they have a chance to break down.

 

 

[smirkis]

i have the same tank and run 2 small clowns and a purple fire fish. so you can probably keep 1 of the 2 firefish in there in the end. 

[Seadragon]

40 minutes ago, jservedio said:

I'll add another data point - my tank won't support chaeto, it'll just wither away and die like all other green algaes. I've got no filtration in my tank at all and only do smaller water changes every 3-6 weeks. I've got two big clowns that are over 10 years old and an 8 year old melanurus wrasse in just 20g that get fed at least once a day. My only CuC is two hermits, a turbo, an astrea, and 1 or 2 nassarius.

 

My tank is pushing 10 years old so it's got tens of thousands of feather dusters, vermetid snails, sponges of all sorts, tunicates, tiny critters, and 90% of the square footage on my rocks is covered with established and healthy coral or anemones. Even with this lack of maintenance, heavy stocking/feeding, and skeleton CuC my tank is lower than I would like for nutrients. The reason for this is just that all of the organics are pulled from the water column before they have a chance to break down.

 

I do love your reef tank Jack, it's quite beautiful.  But, I think a lot of this stuff is relative.  I noticed you used to use a large Bubble Magus C3.5 skimmer (some of us, such as me, do not have a protein skimmer or ever used one), you do water changes every 3-6 weeks (that's on average once every 4.5 weeks or about 116 times in 10 years, in comparison I might only do 1-5 emergency water changes in 10 years on my reef tank), and I believe your large amount & variety of corals and filter feeders help keep your nutrients under control while other tanks may need macroalgae to assist in this role.

 

 

Chaeto is nothing more than an optional tool in our arsenal and is not needed if other forms of nutrient export is in place.  But, I do love it in my tank and I know other hobbyists love it in their refugium.  I think having so many different options to accomplish the same task is what makes this hobby beautiful.

[jservedio]

24 minutes ago, Seadragon said:

I do love your reef tank Jack, it's quite beautiful.  But, I think a lot of this stuff is relative.  I noticed you used to use a large Bubble Magus C3.5 skimmer (some of us, such as me, do not have a protein skimmer or ever used one), you do water changes every 3-6 weeks (that's on average once every 4.5 weeks or about 116 times in 10 years, in comparison I might only do 1-5 emergency water changes in 10 years on my reef tank), and I believe your large amount & variety of corals and filter feeders help keep your nutrients under control while other tanks may need macroalgae to assist in this role.

 

Thank you. The water changes are entirely irrelevant when it comes to nutrients - my nitrates are at or under 5ppm with the skimmer off, so doing the water change is bringing them down by 1ppm or less - those water changes are really only for sort-of replenishing trace elements that I'm not going to test for and not paying to have tested with triton (think potassium, iodine, bromine, iron, etc.).

 

My point being that chaeto simply can't survive in my tank because the complex organics are never broken down into N, P, and C because they are utilized by the organisms in my tank and the little that do get broken down are used up immediately by things that out compete any macros. Turning the skimmer on has no effect whatsoever on nutrient levels in my tank - they stay the same. The only difference is that there is less organics in the water column to be utilized. As your tank matures and you have that same abundance of non-coral life, I doubt you will be able to keep chaeto alive no matter how hard you try. A lot of us here have very mature tanks and kind of just scratch our heads at the prospect of putting a macro (or really anything) in there unless we want a macro display tank. Old tanks just don't have nutrient problems, try as we might.

 

After almost 10 years, I do the bare minimum possible for maintenance and I am away from my tank for long stretches of time. Unless it is critical to keeping something I'm attached to alive, I just don't do it. Every time I think "hey, I need to fix that" I stare at it for a month before doing anything, and I work from home so my tank is less than 5 feet away at all times. The only reason I don't have a skimmer is because the pump clogged and I didn't get around to fixing it for 2 months, but things started looking better with it off. So I never bothered to fix it or take it out of the sump (got hundreds of sponges on it!).

[Seadragon]

2 hours ago, jservedio said:

After almost 10 years, I do the bare minimum possible for maintenance and I am away from my tank for long stretches of time.

 

I can tell you that we have the same goal in that aspect. 😉  The main difference is that you'll do small water changes every so often while I'll dose Reef Fusion 1 (which has a combination of Ca, Mg, Sr, B, Fe, Mn, Mo, Rb) and Reef Fusion 2 on a daily basis to keep my water parameters within a specific range for Ca and Alk.  I might even pony up the money to get an automatic doser that has WiFi capability and a dedicated app to make it even more automated for myself.