Nano Reefing 101 Quiz, Part I

[steelhealr]

OK...nano team....let's see how you do with this quiz. Keep it light..have fun with it. It's meant for discussion. SH

 

[Redstratplayer1]

I was first wooohooo!!!!!!!!!!




Is a yellow sea cucumber the same as a tiger tail? Because on RC i have seen Tiger tails live in nanos just fine.

 

[andywg]

What is most likely to survive? It all depends on how much you have researched the animals in question and how well you can provide the required conditions. Someone with a large fuge, or a supply of pods, should have no problem keeping a mandarin.

According to Ronald Shimek, so long as you feed phytoplankton a flame scallop is a good reef animal. Similarly, so long as phyto or rotifers are added, yellow sea cucumbers will be fine in an aquarium.

Fromia spp appear to survive for a year and then die of malnutrition.

 

[SkiFletch]

interesting, nobody seems to agree on the substrate

 

[Mr Miagi]

I chose the 4" bed of Arragonite, because 4" is just excessive. Its debatable though. And why is bar bottum getting so many votes? LOL. It is a good question for discussion. BB's are useful when your adding more flow than the average reefer, and also allows LR to better filter water. If you had a 1-2" layer of sand, the surface area is beneficial, but nothing LR couldnt accomplish. And 4" to me seems pointless waste of space, considering you could accomplish your biological filtration with less.

So, SH, you created these cool questions, let us know what your proposed suggestions/answers were for each Q.

 

[n3ont3tra]

I voted 4" for the sand question cause I've read it cause problems long term. With BB you can at least compensate with a sump with a DSB or something.

 

[Donya]

I voted 4" for the sand question cause I've read it cause problems long term. With BB you can at least compensate with a sump with a DSB or something.

Yeah that's what I'd read too; problems with gas buildup unless it's got good sand sifters (saw that in some nano display tanks once...lots of huge bubbles visible through the glass that hadn't been released yet ). I was guessing a tossup between the ultra-thick sandbed and the crushed coral. But, I keep crushed croal and have never seen any of the negative side effects said to occur with it (nitrate spikes, etc.), so I'd think either one is not a hard & fast rule for all tanks. Which one gives the best chance of success for most setups seems like a more straight-forward question to answer than which one will be the worst.

 

[steelhealr]

Answers are posted. My only differing with andywg is that....most of the difficult animals listed, even if you could keep them...the methods required to feed them in a nano system would import too many nutrients. I'm ready for the sparring. SH

 

[andywg]

Answers are posted. My only differing with andywg is that....most of the difficult animals listed, even if you could keep them...the methods required to feed them in a nano system would import too many nutrients. I'm ready for the sparring. SH

Surely just feeding a decent amount of living pods is not going to cause massive problems? If your system is that succeptible to nutrient increases then one must surely consider supplementary nutrient removal, else one accident when feeding (a little too much food, or maybe some being left uneaten) will cause issues.

Many people add phyoplankton for their corals and other suspension filters. Surely one could just increase the skimming in order to retain some scallops or a yellow sea cuc without nuking the tank?

And the question was one on whether they are likely to survive in a nano, not will they survive and allow you to keep all your nutrient levels the same as before putting them in

The sand bed question is pure preferance. 4" of 0.5mm sand is considered by Rob Fenner to be classified as a working Deep Sand Bed, meaning it will aid in dealing with nitrates (as well as provide almost adequate conditions for jawfish). so this is not the least desirable on performance standards. The "toxic gas build up that kills fish" internet legend is one that no one has ever been able to state has happened without citing a friend of a friend of a friend.

The other substrate choices are much of a muchness and it is about personal preference and how well you can keep them clean (we all know how easy a bare bottom tank is to keep clean).

 

[Miss Wiggle]

i thought 4" for the substrate, as for a DSB it's meant to be over 6" isn't it. less than that is pointless and just takes up a lot of room in your tank....... i think

 

[andywg]

i thought 4" for the substrate, as for a DSB it's meant to be over 6" isn't it. less than that is pointless and just takes up a lot of room in your tank....... i think

All depends on the size of the grain. At 0.5mm grain then the bed is far denser and becomes aneraobic much quicker. Look on Wet Web Media for the guide to Deep Sand Beds where advice is given on how deep the bed should be depending on the grain size. Obviously the deeper you have it the better.

 

[Donya]

The "toxic gas build up that kills fish" internet legend is one that no one has ever been able to state has happened without citing a friend of a friend of a friend.

Then what would your explaination be for those big bubbles that were clearly visible in some nano display tanks I saw in the past that had a poorly-maintained DSB? I'm not claiming it could "kill fish," but the bubbles were obvious. It wasn't in my tank (thankfully), but it wasn't word from a friend of a friend either since I actually saw the tanks myself.

 

[andywg]

Then what would your explaination be for those big bubbles that were clearly visible in some nano display tanks I saw in the past that had a poorly-maintained DSB? I'm not claiming it could "kill fish," but the bubbles were obvious. It wasn't in my tank (thankfully), but it wasn't word from a friend of a friend either since I actually saw the tanks myself.

Those bubbles are full of the gasses that are the result of the DSB turning nitrate into nitrogen gas. The gas in the bubble will slowly dissolve into the water and then off-gas at the surface.

How was the DSB "poorly-maintained"? Most efficient DSB are "fill and forget" letting anything that lives in the DSB sort it out. The bacteria you want from a DSB are anaerobic. Exposure to oxygen tends to kill them. If you stir up the DSB to get rid of the bubbles, you also get rid of the beneficial bacteria helping to control the nitrates.

Also, by stirring it, if the any of the gas is Hydrogen sulphate (very nasty) then rather than having small amounts entering the tank water which then react with the oxygen before leaving the DSB (and posing no risk to livestock), you have a huge bubble of the gas flying up through the water.

 

[Mr.September15]

I voted for:

Crushed Coral Sandbed

None of the above

and Salinity

 

[Donya]

How was the DSB "poorly-maintained"?

There appeared to be nothing in there keeping the grains disturbed enough to avoid them compacting and allowing bubbles to form. The good DSBs I've seen where a crossection was visible up against the glass have shown lots of evidence of inverts keeping the grains agitated, which would prevent big bubble formation and let the gas diffuse slowly as you said. The bubbles in the tanks in question didn't go away, so it wasn't a matter of diffusing for those since they never shrank in the time I saw them.