lduncan

Just try and keep it free from bacteria. I guess it comes down to surface area available to bacteria as to how much impact it will make on the tank. 1 square foot of filter wool is going to have a pretty decent surface area. I like running a bit of filter wool, for a day or so every now and then. I probably wouldn't use it continuously though.

That's probably the problem with your experiment then. The algae is getting the phosphorous so you won't see as much detritus being produced. The point of cooking rock out of the tank is to starve the algae of light, so that bacteria alone are using the phosphate within the rock and pushing it out. Algae slows that process down. All that means is that it will take longer for it to fill up and cause problems. It's not like a time bomb which will explode and kill everything in your tank overnight. It's more like a progression of increased algae, having algae you never had before just pop up, maybe recession from the base in acros. Some people refer to it as old tank syndrome. You know when you hear about nutrient upwellings in the ocean? Guess what that's from. It's from the sediments doing what they naturally do, storing and releasing nutrients such as phosphorous and metals, which feed phytoplankton, which feeds the ocean. The fact that your rock looks the way it does (from photo's i've seen) is proof that your sand bed is working like every other sediment, ie cycling nutrients. I'm not saying sand beds are all bad, they have their place. By understanding what they do, you can aviod the problems with them, and determine whether the problems are truely problems for the sort of tank you want to run. So relating this all back to the algae topic, sandbeds can have a large impact on the rocks in your tank, and can be responsible for algae problems even when water parameters appear fine. Layton

I think Ira wants some streams!

Interesting that the people I know in ChCh and wasp disagrees. How much algae was on the rocks when you removed it?

Just be aware that if you do go BB, then you should setup the flow so that most detritus doesn't settle. It's not a quick process once you remove sand, the rock sheds a LOT for months before it slows down. And because the sand doesn't trap and hold the nutrients, if detritus is left sitting on the bottom of the tank, it's going to cause nitrate and phosphate to rise. My rocks appeared absolutely fine before I went BB, they weren't dirty looking or covered in any sort of algae or slime, but 6 months on they are still shedding a lot of stuff, although it is starting to slow down now. Hair algae can also be hard to get rid of because the hairs just trap more floating detritus which feeds growth, so if you put the affected rocks into a high flow area then that can help clear it up faster. Layton

Who said I wasn't with Joe?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends what's causing the algae.

If what you said above was true wasp, zeovit wouldn't work. You rely on bacteria to quickly grab and hold phosphorous. They do that well. The grab many times more phosphorous than they need to support their requirements. Orthophosphate exists when all organic pools are full, ie, bacteria (and other organisms) have grabbed as much phosphorous as they can. If the pools aren't full, then orthophosphate is not going to be detectable. If the water is free of orthophosphate, nothing leaches from the pools into the water, because that's what bacteria do, hold on to it, if they didn't zeovit wouldn't work. A reading on a phosphate kit only tells you that you have plenty of phosphate in your tank. Chimera: BB meaning not having rocks sitting in a sand bed which is storing detritus, and therefore phosphate, which is absorbed by the rock, and then shed from the rock as detritus and bacteria flock back into the sand bed. The hair algae feeds of the phosphate as it is shed from the rock. I think what people don't realise it that the rock produces detritus (sheds) whether you have a sand bed or BB. With a sand bed it's and endless cycle of phosphate being stored in the sand absorbed by the rock and then shed by the rock, which drops back into the sand bed due to gravity. With BB, when the rock sheds, you expect the flow to keep it in suspension so that it is skimmed out. Rock cooking is the process of rock shedding with no light, so the algae can't grow and slow the process of removing phosphate from rock which is excessively loaded with phosphate. It all settles as a bacteria flock and detritus which is physically removed. Layton

Personally, I think Helen's a communist at heart!

Nope. The issue isn't accuracy. It's to do with what your actually measuring. These kits only measure orthophosphate, not total phosphate. The hair algae may not stem from water soluble orthophosphate, but other phoshorous forms cycling in the rocks and sand bed. Zeovit and rowa are going to have trouble fighting this. It's one of the underlying motivations behind the BB method. Layton

I think of it this way. What is the point in trying to idiot proof the world through legislation. As long as ones actions have no effect on other people, who cares if they do something stupid and kill themselves. Think of it as natural selection, less dumbasses in the world to pollute the gene pool! Layton

The Hanna meter is no more useful than any other hobby test kit. If you get any sort of reading, all it tells you is that your tank has more than enough phosphate. All it tests for is othophosphate, which only exists in the water when all pools of phosphate in the tank are saturated. Layton

I'd look at the sand bed and rocks before looking to zeovit for a cause of the hair algae. Hair algae is a sign of phosphate cycling, so you may not be able to detect water soluble orthophosphate, yet still have algae problems. It just feeds off phosphate stored in the rock, rather than from the water. The iron from zeovit may not help either. But that's a secondary issue. The issue will be phosphate. Fix that, and you'll have no more hair algae. Layton

You almost had me thinking that cars actually move in auckland! Going 80...

If your that bored, it's covered under HSNO (Hazardous Substances and New Organisms act). Layton

Depends what sort of fish you want to keep. For most tangs a 4 foot is going to be a bit small, but for clowns a 3 foot would be fine. Anything under 4 foot I'd say is small. 4 foot is a good starting size, and allows people to keep a wide variety of animals. Anything smaller, and you start to drastically reduce the variety of fish you can keep.

In all my research on iron, i never stumbled across this guy!

...or alternatively use google to search RC: http://www.reefcentral.com/search.php?s=&menu=11

Looks sort of like a little arrow crab.

Who has a 800 litre tank and no room for a sump? What's under the tank?

Is that because of the pissy flow, or the fact that some have a bit of trouble spinning at all?

Hmm, that's a Lobophytum, never seen a green one of those. It may be a S. polydactyla without it's polyps out? More like image 3 but green.

The green one i've seen / got are usually Sinularia flexibilis (thin branches) or Sinularia poydactyl (sp?) (chunky branches).

Just like any other leather, except green from zoox created pigments.

Like many things it can be a bit hit and miss. But generally the two you mention, flame and coral beauty are going to be the safest to put in a tank with clams. Layton