brandon429

Members
  • Content count

    6,519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About brandon429

  • Rank

  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tx
  • Interests
    Reefing, drumming, metal, motorcycle, rc fpv uavs, scooby diving, biology

    Why does this man talk about peroxide so much? is he insane? why does he hate api test kits?

Recent Profile Visitors

1,704 profile views
  1. the zos are resistant to peroxide it wouldn't be a horrible idea to rinse them in a small dilution reefwater and perx outside the tank, as the rocks are rinsed off and the substrate blasted clean. if no detritus clouding is imported back into the setup tank, it will not recycle. steps can be taken to verify if that is bad dinos before big action if preferred on r2r dino threads they have posted cheap microscopes now avail on amazon that will take a pic of the cells cheap https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-Handheld-Digital-Microscope-Pro/dp/B00CMJ1I08/ref=pd_lutyp_simh_4_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B00CMJ1I08&pd_rd_r=859NZ7RX90XGS5Z2X1EW&pd_rd_w=hAEKl&pd_rd_wg=sRa3o&psc=1&refRID=859NZ7RX90XGS5Z2X1EW cheap mass produced video scopes are fun future use reef toy anyway, and the big job isn't as indicated if this is just cyano or something appearing with the morphology of invasive dino strains. I vote 90% its dino strains they've posted at r2r going off those pics. many take lesser actions such as just removing it in tank, and not parting/cleaning agreed its all a spectrum of option. The key push for the rip clean however remains that its regenerative, not stressful, for a nano reef all the time. That type of detritus removal cannot be beaten, the invasive mass that can be removed physically using nothing as a rinse other than sw are so powerful that a rip cleaning is what we can do to regenerate a tank that is running perfectly fine. in your case its the most assertive action for something with a fair invasion potential. Once you run a thorough rip cleaning you'll come to use them from time to time. It only seems like something that would be harsh. if that turns out to be truly invasive strains, you are on your last window of opportunity. if not, then any partial guiding will probably work just fine. There's no denial that hands off reefing works for a long time, but if you want to rip clean you'll simply have a brighter reef/corals opening even wider. its regenerative and flushing, like a real reef. effects are seen next day. The pore size of your substrate requires rip cleaning in fact, but not immediately. im not saying you couldn't get out 40 months but its a larger grain, that takes on more mass. you don't have to run the big job now for sure, but consider it as a back pocket idea for future events
  2. Shar if that tank was mine it would be parted out and cleaned, the sb rinsed in smoking steaming tap water until it ran perfectly clean, then all reassembled skip cycle. don't play around with that invader, just attack is my mode. you have caught it before takeover, the rip clean is a powerful method A rip clean means invader gone by 5 pm today...then if it grows back, repeat the rip, and then run any number of the dino battling techniques on the clean condition tank a secret to being algae free is never take action on algae you can see, only take water actions nutrient/controls/clean up crews/chemical actions on algae you muscled out.
  3. mostanticipatedupdate says what heh
  4. it is darn nice. and a predicted 75 year lifespan before complete dissolution due to acid rain ur set its sharp I like it. a dead poci skeleton sits in my desk terrarium right now with moss growing around it lol I like hardscapes/caco3 and planting its neat combo.
  5. Hey Your LFS guy was speaking in a confusing way when he said you are running practically freshwater, I think he means your nitrate readings are too high (per his choice, and fw tanks are higher agreed) and that's a subjective call. some choose not to test for anything in reefing other than temp and salt levels, knowing the rest will balance out with only weekly 50% water changes. you can adopt that mode if you want to test less. the whole pico forum from this site is built on that mode, they rarely detail params in the smaller tanks though its possible if you like to detail. One hurdle you are simply going to have to choose in your reefing style is how you deal with parameter drift. You are either going to endlessly test and dose for the individual params, or you can use the tanks from the picos forum matching your tanks gallonage and copy what they do which is test none of that and just water change and have no headaches nor testers and dosers. Its not that params don't drift; or that one salt level has better magnesium than another...its that all of the mixes grow coral despite their variances on this weekly schedule. Significance is what frees you. you can ease into the testing game, don't have to start that way. go to the picos forum, look at the sticky up top "el fabs 3 gallon pico" and that's an example of testing nothing only 50% weekly water changes.
  6. the chances of you having any clouding after running what we did there = 0%. works for all invaders. cyano, diatoms, dinos, pretty much all. agreed there are less work options, things you can add to the water based on invasion specifics, but in nanos that method above is tops for the reasons posted in after pics.
  7. ive been too lazy to start one, but the cousin to this thread needs to be how long does it take totally dry rocks and sand, no form of ammonia boosting or bac added via bottle at all, to become a cycled tank when we just add sw and maintain it. 1-2 ppm digest ability....prediction, 2-4 mos in the 80s that's the only way we set up guppy tanks so I know for a fact it works in fw within 30-60 days, and considering natural seed sources for both setups are globally cast around the world its possible marine tanks may do that just as fast. have not tested the marine version. if the marine version takes longer, I pose its due to seed sources being far less than fw sources but they both are nonetheless cast around globally. I read something on google scholar just the other day called "tropospheric biome distribution" and talks about all the spores molds and fungi lol that travel above the clouds
  8. linked to our cycling thread on R2R really well done. you have a nice working api too agreed/admitted/rejoice and clone it heh. You are featuring on a mini scale test some pretty big biological tenets. we mostly get to rave-post about them, and rarely get to test it in action. we're still dealing with excess surface area ime, and if we stopped all feeding whatsoever for six months I predict it w still process ammonia, forever, until hydration is pulled. ghost feeding is for macro animals we don't want to starve, bacteria don't need it, they're getting food always and need only hydration. after testing is done here I wish so badly you'd quit feeding it (no corals left in to starve, a rocks and sand test) keep it topped off, don't even care if its heated or circulated, and then digest test the bac after several mos. that's just microbiology out front with a test like that. you can easily easily easily write a great article from those findings. NR needs one of them. people who make their tanks fallow for ich care and prevention really benefit from what your tank shows in a back-and-forth condition regarding nutrients and surface area. what you are continuing here is a fine test for what bacteria require from aquarists to do their job. we ascribe lots of control over bacteria to what we add and withhold from tanks.... You are essentially making a ghost feeding verification thread, that ghost feeding isn't required to keep bac going would be the null claim imo. the postverse would surely claim that if you don't maintain specific nutrient input, your filtration ability will downscale to the point it cannot handle the original bioload when reintroduced. Lets see if your system goes up to 2-4 in total spite of that postverse claim.
  9. on the testing verification not sure if they have the marine specific ones there, but eyeball this calculator and Id be curious to know if what you had to input in order to get to 1 ppm on the api is roughly equivalent to the amnts this thing spits out. you have to know your starting ammonia concentration of soln before it was added to the tank to make 1ppm. some sources may not list percentages on the bottle not sure but this is a neat way to alt calibrate your api test in my opinion http://www.fishforums.net/aquarium-calculator.htm hey also im seeing they've added in the middle portion of the page, a live rock predictor lol you can verify that too apparently after you get your oxidation results in 24 hours. you are about to live time test the digital calcs so many use.
  10. I completely recall that now from our thread a few mos ago now that I see it, another thing I like there is those corals aren't frag nubs. they're hungry, they command more food and more export and more ion suppt than a nubbin tank. nice
  11. very helpful topic we'll link to our cycling thread which involves ammonia detailing did you test and make the pico water 1 ppm after your ammonia additions, or did you add from a 1 ppm soln into the pico, that's first clarifier was wondering yes the 1 ppm is usually above typical bioloads only going off the sheer numbers who cycle that amnt, then input a bunch of fish (tangs) and other bioloads especially in fish only setups/eel setups where the fish load is 100x that of a normal tank with clowns and a goby. the scaling of a pico reef really changes things due to surface area changes. I feel that's why Dr Tim doesn't say his 1-2ppm cycling is limited only to reef tanks, it covers all marine setups in my opinion and from online posts. Depending on the live rock I expect ammonia movement within 24 hours. a pico reef of 1 or 2 running gallons rarely carries any type of measurable bioloading on hobby test kits in my opinion. corals wont exude a measurable amnt and neither would a goby among any sort of active surface area within the pico imo. that means your test automatically exposes this pico to orders higher digestion needs than it was adapted to during its run time. You are testing ghost feeding requirements in a profound yet simple way. we can milk this for details bigtime heh also, can you run more than one ammonia test per grouping, not using the same test. take a sample somewhere for confirms or bum an alternate name brand test kit just if lucky possible. we need api + not api as an ideal to eliminate confounds in my opinion. api alone w do if the alt is not possible. if there are still measures left in 24 hours of ammonia ill be surprised, and pending pics id have to assume the live rock presence is very small compared to tank dimensions, not like 5lbs per gallon or anything.
  12. that is a shocking tank arrest after pic I might tear up a little heh it needs to be on the first page of our sand rinse thread as an ideal outcome. that's just sharp man! pure skip cycle biology, pure. My little tank from my avatar is abnormal it doesn't evaporate in the normal way... reefbowls and vases often get out a week or so before topoff requirements, they're evaporation controlled due to special lids. I just turn my air down and im topping off once a week manually, reefbowls don't need ato they're the most stable nano design of all its just an errant nerfball can kill them I do add topoff water its just maybe 2-3 every two weeks. another trick is that most of us aren't using fish in them...fish add to the detritus production massively. live rock itself literally makes pellet waste (its apartment residents do) and then we're also directly adding feed to the system, there's plant breakdown matrix decaying in any average system, it all contributes. a reefbowl runs so flexibly because we attack those sources so well. no fish, sandbeds that pass a drop test effortlessly, all algae was pre guided out and killed with peroxide so there is no plant decay, and the natural detritus from the live rocks and minor feeding can just be handled monthly its well enough. its a lucky tune for pico reefers, but the large tankers get all the neat fish and fun techy options so its a trade off each way. I can't thank you enough for running the method w such good documentation !
  13. I agree that's the summary for a substrate cleaning yours is a replace I agree it's too coarse. We like to use reef flakes or Fiji pink sand most commonly in our threads and that cleansing option w be handy one day, even the finer sands w take on waste eventually
  14. at this point it becomes nuanced into what people have working for them in the past, or the common measures of clean up crews etc and as long as the reactions are done to the clean condition tank then they have a much better chance of working. that's what we do different. we force compliance first, then we try the options that may or may not prevent its return, just that little change up makes you never invaded again. when you make improvements on prevention, you'll deep clean less, either way the algae just got voted out. anything clouding your water-voted out. we can use work to force compliance, because the microbes allow crazy level force and they still work. what the masses get undeniably wrong is taking action on the invaded condition by only acting on the water, or with clean up crews. They farm the algae on purpose, sit right there and look at it although they could be free of it within two days. easier to claim in nanos vs large tankers where due to sheer size most of their actions are through the water justifiably. *a caveat must be inserted here for upcoming hobby changes using tools like fluconazole* which is a water only treatment, garnering a massive following in its ability to wipe out certain invaders. The reason I don't change my whole stance to that is: it doesn't wipe out all genera, some are now posting growback details in the flucon threads, and water-actions don't remedy cruddy sandbeds, which in time feeds invaders flucon will not beat. I know its a fantastic cheat, but this is meat and potatoes eutrophication control and I get a massive level of compliance across tanks, low variability, in using this sweat-of-the-brow reefing. quick fixes other than peroxide do not impress me heh. if I had a 200 gallon reef id keep some flucon on hand as a cheat tho, agreed. for nanos I beat them into submission and advise the same for others. The #1 thing that worked for me back when I used to battle algae on the rocks (goes away in time, a few more rounds coming up till its solid purple coralline) was to blue up the lighting. I expected algae to grow back, I didn't fault the method when I had to retreat a few times, I trusted it stops when coralline takes over and when this system has been on top of a clean sandbed for months, not just as a new change of pace. I changed the lifestyle of my tank and it responded by no more algae headaches. if you can blue up that lighting it really could help your growback and be such a simple tune. Its all very customed and subjective what to do as ideal prevention and I cannot wait until someone truly finds and documents a nano reefing method that is hands off the whole way as a long term method. I aint seen one to date, and I hate having to take my tank apart occasionally. it was mentioned early not to use topoff water that has TDS; that's a good rule for prevention to well and is part of the customed approaches we use to hopefully prevent growback. I do deep cleaning it cuz it works and im past the experimenting stage I just want an algae free purple reef and I took the quickest method to get there. so glad to have your example I linked it on the first page of the sand rinse thread.
  15. yes that thread link posted above, has a thread from reef2reef, that shows how you can do anything you want to a sandbed and not recycle the tank. anything you want. flip it, mix it, remove it, add to it, anything here's thread https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/the-official-sand-rinse-thread-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445 in the example thread above, that keeper took his whole sandbed out, rinsed it, and put it back. nothing says we cant put back different sand.