lduncan

Bangaii's are by far the easiest, mainly because you don't have to have rotifers to raise them. However, you may have a problem sourcing a pair. Over the last couple of years, imported bangaiis have had massive mortality rates. They use to be pretty bullet proof (like damsels), but now they seem to die off after about 2 to 4 weeks. I know of three different importers who pretty much report exactly the same thing happening. It's unknown what the problem really is, but it's most likely related to collection and handling procedures pre export from indo. You may be better off going with clowns, as they are easily sexed, and spawn without any trouble, raising the fry required phyto and rotifers however. Layton

Yeah I'd just leave it in the tank, but blow it down regularly, and keep the water, and bottom clean. It can be one of those "how longs a piece of string" things, it depends how much stuff was living on the rock when it was dried, and also where the rock came from, some are naturally higher in phosphate than others. Once shedding slows down, you know it's done. Just watch your alkalinity during the time it's cooking, the bacteria processes demand a lot of carbon, which means alkalinity can drop like a rock. Layton

I had some success with one batch of bangaiis 3 or 4 years ago, but haven't been able to get hold of a pair since. I have 3 royal dottybacks which spawn regularly. Just too much time and effort to raise them. Breeding shrimp, even just out of interest would be cool, as long as you realise you have virtually no chance of them making it through the metamorphic changes. Seen that you're studying bio, you should have access to microscopes and stuff which would make it a bit more interesting than to most of us here. Layton

Oh no, not Dr Ron! I don't think i'll comment there, I might get into trouble "Cooking" will work in a tank. In fact there is no way to avoid it. The process happens in every tank, all of the time. Basically you have bacteria within the rock. This bacteria consumes as much phosphate as it can (exactly the same way that bacteria in a sand bed does) http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/66/12/5236 Because there is a small finite amount of space in the rock, as the bacteria multiply, they are push out of the rock, taking with them the phosphate they have accumulated. The bacteria keep pushing themselves out, each time leaving less and less phosphate in the rock. This continues until an equilibrium is reached with water levels and available levels of phosphate in the rock. The reason why this is done in the dark, is so that algae can not intercept the phosphate and slow down the bacterial access to it. Also, the cooking process is often done in buckets cause it's easier to "swish" the detritus out of the rocks, and them get rid of it. It might take a bit longer in a tank, as the process depends a lot on keeping the surrounding water clean. I would never setup a tank without cooking the rock after having seen the process happen in my tank (At the time, I hadn't even heard of rock cooking!) Layton

If you leave the lights off over the next two or three weeks you should notice a lot of detritus come out of the rocks. This is the sign that denitrifying bacteria are starting to do their thing. They will clean the base rock of a lot phosphate, which will mean there should be less potential for issues with algae in the future. Blow the rocks down with a powerhead, and siphon out any piles which collect. I'd be keeping BB during this process it's easier to remove the stuff because you can see it. You can always add sand after it's finished. It's pretty amazing to see the crap that comes out of dry base rock even without any fish and coral in the tank. Layton

you'll know next time then You know what I mean. They seem to be particularly common in Germany, I've seen at least half a dozen German tanks on the net with one. And more available in Europe as a whole over the States and this part of the world. Layton

Yip, they mainly come from around Africa, (that's why they are more common in Germany and Europe than the States) $1500 USD retail for that tang in the States!

I'd give it more than a few minutes before testing. It has to reach hydrogen carbonate / carbonate equilibria first. You could end up adding too much if you test before this happens. Or you can use the calculator here: http://home.comcast.net/~jdieck1/chem_calc3.html To work out how much baking soda to add based on water volume, current and desired alk level. It should get you close enough to your target number. Layton

You never know, I may grace Auckland with my presence, if Steve Weast can make it to a reef club meeting up there.

Well, yes you could do that without harm (as long as the Mg ribbon was not contaminated with other heavy metals) But it would be an expensive and long winded way of doing it. Most people use magnesium chloride (or magnesium carbonate in a calcium reactor) it's a lot cheaper than ribbon, and a lot less messing around. Layton

So explain it to me, in a little more detail than "badness" in and "goodness" out. What's wrong with the information i've provided? Layton

That tank photo doesn't contradict anything i've posted. If you know how the sand bed works, you'll see that it's entirely possible to have a tank which looks like that. You'll also know that the sand is working the same way as all the links i've posted say it does. The reality is, is that you don't even know what the links are saying, or how they say sand works. You just dismiss them as rubbish without even clicking on them, and at least reading an abstract or two. If you had done that, you might see that the fact that there are some impressive tanks running DSB's is not contradictory to the information they present. Layton

Yip, http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/databases/ I think it's available through the Springer database, but I remember they call it something different on the uni library site, can't remember what though. Layton

I don't see what you mean? Has time changed how sand works? Remember we are talking about sand as a filtration method.

I don't have access to the full paper now (don't have free access through the uni anymore). But from memory, they were referring to the fact that they had a number of setups, each with different loadings (phosphorus inputs), the ones with higher loadings eventually resulted in release, while the lower loadings never got to that stage during the experiment. Layton

So you want something done in a glass box then? Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume 20, Issue 12 , December 1989, Pages 624-628 "Alteration of phosphorus dynamics during experimental eutrophication of enclosed marine ecosystems" Kenneth R. Hinga Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA Available online 7 April 2003. This was a 28 month eutrophication experiment conducted in marine mesocosms at the Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory of the University of Rhode Island. (it was done in closed tanks) Funnily enough it showed that sand works the same in a tank, as it does in lakes rivers and oceans. Imagine their surprise when they found that out So it's just as valid to use open ocean studies. It's all bacteria driven. If you've got bacteria in your sad bed, it's going to work the same as it does in the ocean, or a lake. Layton

I find it funny reading comment's like this. Sure no two tanks are the same, but things ALWAYS work the same way. Sand works exactly the same in every tank. Although it may appear as though it doesn't to those with an incomplete understanding of what it's doing. It's part of the reason why I post this info. So you can see why there are many tanks which look great with sand, and also why there are so many tanks which are plagued with problems due to sand, as well as what the implications of having sand in a tank when unexpected things happen (for example long power outages, broken pumps etc) (Again, i'm talking about sand as a filtration method) That's not going to happen any time soon, there is always something new to learn. I don't think you want to "dumb people down" intentionally for fear that too much knowledge will work against you. Layton

No, i did not present that theory as fact. I presented the theory, (which I stated was pure speculation) based on several facts and observations. This is different to what you said above. The reason it was qualified with lots of maybes, what ifs, perhaps, etc, was because it was speculative, and I was not trying to pass it off as fact, just a potential explanation, based on available evidence. Completely untested or unverified. (If you read some of mesocosms recent posts on zeovit.com you'll actually see that some of it bears an unusual resemblance to things I have posted here on the topic) This is a different situation. This is not a theory, this is actual hard data. More reading: http://www.ifm-geomar.de/fileadmin/ifm- ... oxygen.pdf http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/G ... /52_1.html http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/4/1545 http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?con ... 509&lan=en http://www.com.univ-mrs.fr/IRD/atollpol ... sedsel.htm Layton

I disagree. The bacteria you rely on for the cycling to happen don't need light at all. Algae does. Without light, you have the bacteria without competition from algae. With light you have bacteria competing with algae. Layton

If you leave the lights off, it will stop any algae getting to the crap in the rocks as the bacteria push it out. It will speed up the cycle, and minimise or avoid algae growth while the rocks are cleaning up. Layton

There's a lot of crap on the net too. Also, not everybody has the access which I have had through the university, to all the databases of journals, papers, and scientific publications which I, up until this year, have had. You have to pay to access most of those. That's where the real information is. Look on the general internet and you'll more than likely find information from experts who earn a living out of writing and selling books, and running seminars and courses, explaining to hobbyists how to build a DSB which does the opposite to nature, and instead of storing waste, actual processes it, while claiming that it's as easy as falling off a log. If you can read this information on the internet where and when you want, then surly this site is redundant. Layton

That's not why I do. There is a distinct difference between theories, and experimental results. There is a lot more thought involved than just that. I see where you are coming from, from a certain extent. But it's not in my nature to tip-toe around other peoples sensitivities on topics like these. I don't intend it to be rude or come across as antagonistic, it's just me getting to the point. Layton

Looks to be a reasonably well written article, although the reactions are a bit simplistic. In reality, the calcium hydroxide does not completely stay as hydrogen carbonate ( HCO3- ) there is an additional reaction where the hydrogen carbonate is in an equilibrium with carbonate ( CO3-2 ). Another benefit of the vinegar method is that the acetate forms a buffer, similar in effect to alkalinity, resisting changes in pH. However, acetate is also used very efficiently by various types of important bacteria, including nitrogen fixing, and denitrifying bacteria, so the buffering effect is more than likely negligible. Layton

The thing that amuses me sometimes, is that people complain that the information I provide is wrong, but they bring absolutely nothing to the table. They don't explain why they think the information is wrong, or what is really going on, or alternative refuting information. I don't make this information up, it's not my theories. It's professional experimental results produced by people more qualified than myself, and in fact anyone on this forum. Layton

Why does describing how a sand bed does it thing, cause so much trouble? Layton