For What It's Worth

[jhnrb]

pH CALIBRATION FLUIDS | SHELF LIFE

Apparently, the pH calibration fluids sold in the United States are all derived from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard pH solutions. (I believe this explains why we Yanks use calibration solutions which have pH values of 4.0, 7.0 and 10.0, instead of the 5.0, 7.0 and 9.0 solutions commonly used is Europe, where the use of pH meters for aquariums originated.)

Assuming that bit about NIST solutions to be true, the big enemy of old calibration fluids would be CO2 absorbed from the air, which acts like an acid in the calibration fluid just as it does in out tanks.

The pH 4.0 solution should hold its pH value very well over time, as it should be almost totally immune to absorbing CO2. Its pH is already close to the pH point at which all dissolved CO2 in the water is already either CO2 or H2CO3. So, absorbing more CO2 won't materially affect it.

The pH 7.0 standard is somewhat more susceptible to absorbing CO2 from the surrounding air, since it really wants to be at pH 4.0, too.

The real CO2-absorbance casualty among calibration fluids is the pH 10.0 standard solution. It's made from sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate, and it really wants to absorb CO2 and make acid out of it. Once it's been opened, its pH starts to fall immediately and it falls rapidly. (Don't breathe on it too much, either.) An open bottle that was right at 10.0 when opened will be 9.4 or even less in very short order -- a few days or weeks.

Using old or previously opened pH 10.0 fluid to calibrate your pH electrodes will bias your meter high, by an amount proportional to how far below 10.0 the fluid was. (This probably explains the apparent jump up in the pH of your water, matthew.)

If you want the best value for your buck and accurately-calibrated pH meters, buy the little one-time-use foil packs -- especially for the 10.0 fluid. Buy only what you will use in a year or so, and don't accept any that will be more than 2 years old for the 4.0 and 7.0, or more than 1 year old for the 10.0, at the time when you will get around to using them.

Remember, the shelf-life starts when the stuff is made, not when you buy it.

By the way, the best way to calibrate a meter is at two points on either side of the pH you plan to measure. That means 4.0 and 7.0 for you freshwater tank keepers, and 7.0 and 10.0 for us reefers and saltwater fish keepers. Some makes of meter reportedly require one or the other sets of fluids for calibration, regardless of what you plan to use it on.

It figures that we poor reefers would get saddled with the short-shelf-life, mean-tempered pH 10.0 calibration fluid....

END. (REPRINT)

[jhnrb]

by: Sam Gamble



http://www.keysmariculture.com

Aquariums. They are getting better all the time, but we still bog down trying to construct the totally in situ system. "In situ" meaning in the natural or normal position. We have become good students of the natural mechanisms concerning benthic ecology. New words have been invented to describe some of it, e.g., "bio-geochemical" pathways. Holistic approaches like energy has been applied to reductionism observations about cell metabolism to explain and develop our quest. We want a type of aquarium technology that controls itself more than our intervention as maintenance. Can we create practical aquarium maintenance based on academic natural science; can it be done?

Over the past couple of years we have kept ourselves busy trying to learn what a "PLENUM" is and how it works. Bob Goemans is currently illustrating that with an in depth summary. However, we cannot get away from the fact there is trouble maintaining a large biomass load in a reduced nutrient environment , e.g., a large fish population in a reef tank. Attempts to do so have stretched all the superior traits of a plenum system to their limits.

Our emphasis on nutrients has had good outcomes, even though the term is a little ambiguous. We can now better understand where nutrients come from and how to remove potential excesses. And we also understand the necessity of nutrients to maintain and promote the production of energy, growth, and reproduction. Our vocabulary has expanded to describe the living processes of benthic ecology, and how it defines natural equilibrium. Hence, we accept, understand, and enhance the essential energy cycles. We understand how stabilizing the microorganisms that form the inextricable foundation may conceivably produce in situ filtration. The bottom line is the equilibrium of shared energy has become a realization. After all it's part of life's balance.

From the MACNA IX conference (which I attended), one conclusion could be drawn * we have learned more about corals and natural systems, but there wasn't much new going on about system equilibrium. Why is that since we do better understand how nutrients lead to our successes and failures. We also better understand how nutrients depend on balance between important constituents like carbon and nitrogen. And we better understand important ways to maintain important equilibrium factors for macro cultures. For example, in nature the natural balance between carbon and nitrogen is about 7:1. By some, this is called the Redfield Ratio. If we remove too much carbon or inversely create too many nitrogen compounds, then nitrogen has a tendency to shift toward storage. Storage takes forms like primary production, also known as nitrogen fixation or algae growth. It's a general flux from the water to the sand or benthic substrate. Often this will create a temporary shift or decrease in pH and alkalinity. The maintenance reaction is to supply buffers and/or calcium, which precipitate phosphorous at the same time. The result is stored nitrogen and phosphate. You have an algae problem, you say?

The answer must lie in being able to treat excess nutrient flux contained by the water without changing/impairing energy metabolism in the sediments. And what about the high load that exceeds metabolic rates and capabilities? This kind of shoots down our hopes to achieve "in situ" filtration in aquarium science.

We have a new concept that provides change to our pessimistic prospects.

The concept hinges on two primary elements; light and water. Light is the most essential source of energy, and water is the containment medium through which it must travel. That in itself is not new and is pretty standard. However, to think of water as a liquid crystal, and light as a transformation energy source is perhaps new.

Life has a balance in every event from microscopic to macroscopic. We observe balance as conducive to our way of life and the sustaining events of things or creatures we wish to preserve. If you are trying to maintain an aquarium, you must consider the main culture you wish to preserve and then understand that countless microscopic events must happen to maintain the macro cultures. The best way to understand the system is to understand the single cell and what it needs to promote its equilibrium. Understanding the elements of the containment medium is essential, such as water, carbon, and light. Each has many variables and when all three are associated, an exponential capability exists and the complexity of the results are usually taken for granted.

A drop of water! What is it? Who cares, it is just a drop on my windshield or a bucket full of them for my aquarium. Actually, water is a solvent. Anything it comes in contact with regarding an organic nature, the water is either absorbed or it itself absorbs. Cationic, Anionic, or nonionic reactions occur. Individually or in combination. A unit of structure built up from polymeric molecules or ions is termed micelle. Micelles represent these phenomena. Most generally micelles are accredited to man's design, like rayon. However, nature is a series of interactive micelles. Micelles containing specific compounds create an association of polar bodies, and when the magnetic fields are associated with an appropriate ion array, photon emission takes place. Lightning Bugs are a demonstration of this phenomena, as well as bio-luminescence in algae. We are discussing liquid crystals, a specific type of micelle.

As we look at an aquarium filled with water, this equates to a bunch of drops. Let's say that the water is pure, therefore with the absence of salts, no reaction can occur. At the same time the water droplet is a type of optic film. This film can pass specific light waves without dissipating them. The water evaporates because of the nutrients in the water. If some of the water evaporates, then the solvent action of that water is lost and the nutrient settles to the next lower layer of water. If the next layer is nutrient loaded, elemental and molecular stacking take place. The concept of liquid crystals has been around for a long time. If you are using a laptop computer to read this, you're probably looking at liquid crystals. Water has structure, but with random movement in the medium of micelles. Together the situation is a little chaotic. However, if the water molecule can somehow be given orders to line up with other molecules in the same orientation, then the structured liquid crystal condition becomes more formal. Also the intramolecular attraction to other neighboring molecules is abated. This alone would allow better light transmittance.

(CONT)

[jhnrb]

Turning water into a liquid crystal sounds like a neat trick, but how could that be done? This introduces an important contributing concept. Magnetic fields can be used to dictate water as a formal liquid crystal. By manipulating the characteristics of the magnetic field, variations to the water liquid crystal can be achieved. This includes its interaction with light.

Magnetic technology has been around for years. The concept is commonly used for water treatment. It's general knowledge that it can be used to soften

water for domestic use. The drawback has been that the condition of diamagnetic change to the water is short lived. This has now been revolutionized and the benefits are applicable to the marine aquarium environment. We can now use the word polarization.

The importance of light is more than transmittance. It contributes favorably to magnetic field effects. Magnetic fields can be produced from electrons in motion, but they themselves do not emit electrons – energy without mass. Light is infinite (does not decompose) and has mass. When acting together you achieve energy without electrons, but having the benefits of mass that is infinite. Okay, so what?

Applied to an aquarium this would first mean light would penetrate better through the nutrient stacking. This is particularly important if there is inhibition of PAR values for organisms like small polyped stony corals. Better penetration means less absorption of red band, which is bad for nuisance algae and good for light loving cnidarians.

The liquid crystal can be programmed to use light to enhance some effects and limit others. By changing the polarization of the water molecule in the liquid crystal, target molecules can be effected. Ionic balance can be achieved while instantaneously changing troublesome molecules like nitrate. The important thing in this case is that it is done without adding electrons or removing molecules. Ionic balance shifts to equilibrium of the system. For example a steady pH and redox are maintained while nitrate disappears, and there is no change in conductivity (ion levels). Conductivity is the potential of charge whereas the Millivolt (redox) is the field charge exchange.

To consider the aquarium as a multitude of water drops composing a medium of micelles, is perhaps new to conceive a vision or model. However, to reduce it to this level has produced a new concept and means to better obtain the "in situ" aquarium. This can be done in a place where nutrient stacking can be controlled for the benefit of total energy to the system that we wish to maintain, "in situ". The containment medium must obey the laws of physics, but we can now program desirable ones for our advantage.

There has been found a way to take advantage of the micelle and the phenomena of liquid crystal concepts. Water drops are composed of molecules made by hydrogen and oxygen atoms. They create the situation that can be enhanced to change negative factors caused by high concentration of nutrients in a finite space. We just have to strong-arm them a little bit. It can be done! It can be done with very positive effects.

First let's apply the thinking to the conditions we have in aquariums. The environment we create is by placing water in a container that is well illuminated. Before we can add the organisms we wish to observe, we have to provide for their waste products that result from taking care of their energy needs. We add a nutrient and waste removal system. By doing so we are also adding to the micelle of the water. With increasing amounts of compounds and elements the containment medium becomes denser. With heat and evaporation the interaction of constituents becomes even more complex. Elements begin to interact in ways that normally are not a first choice. But because of density and all the factors of increased contact and interaction other results evolve. This is where equilibrium and balance start to become forfeited. This will happen in spite of the fact that the filtering system is working at its maximum capacity to remove the compounds and elements they have produced in conjunction with metabolism.

The containment medium of uncountable water drops of H-O-H (water) begins to change its relationship for balance to the organelles in the system. There is a shift in the way water, carbon, and light normally act, and some of the other exponential possibilities become evident. Nutrients become loaded with elemental and molecular stacking taking place. Light transmittance and PAR values decrease. Water becomes laden with nutrients that are available to the wrong users. The relationships between flux, storage, and utilization become unbalanced.

Liquid crystal technology and magnetic field effect changes the unbalanced condition to again favor equilibrium. That's a fact. The characteristics of the water molecule can be changed to form a liquid crystal that allows better passage of photon energy and less absorption by nutrient effects. The nitrate molecule can be changed to other forms to facilitate construction of cell and genetic material without metabolism. Both of which strips nuisance algae of its competitive edge. This is not a dream. It is a reality. A new concept. We can create practical aquarium maintenance based on academic natural science. I think it's possible and am currently involved in bringing this technology forth.

Sam Gamble

END.
Posted by jhnrb

[jhnrb]

(Excert of larger article)

Alkalinity Supplements

by:Julian Sprung

There may be times when alkalinity needs to be given a boost while leaving the calcium level the same. There are several alkalinity supplements on the market, commonly called buffers, which contain a mixture of carbonates, bicarbonates and borates in various proportions. Caution is recommended against the use of buffers with large proportions of borate through. While these do act to raise alkalinity as well as pH and maintain it at a higher level, they play havoc with standard alkalinity test kits and require the use of a specialized kit that takes into consideration the higher borate level in the water. The same applies to salt mixes that have elevated borate levels.

(The correct test kit, manufacturer, or source is beyond the parameters of this article. It is advised to conside the effects of borate and seek out a test kit that will compensate for it.)

[jhnrb]

The Scenario...

Some few days or few weeks after setting up a coral reef aquarium, an aquarist sits down in a comfortable chair and with favored beverage in hand begins to contemplate the sheer beauty of their captive universe. Perhaps it is the gentle motion of the soft corals waving in the currents, perhaps the action of the colorful fishes; no matter, whatever the reason for delight, it is there. The measured joy and deep aesthetic pleasure of a well set-up and maintained reef system is truly an aesthetic boon and soothing balm to a frazzled soul. Our hero, newly home from a day of rat racing, takes a generous sip of aforementioned favored beverage.

Then, out from behind the corner of a rock, or out of a burrow in the sand or, horrors of horrors, out from under a bazillion buck specimen of spitfire gold and electric blue Tridacna expensivus, appears the head of something so utterly loathsome that the mouthful of favored beverage is discharged in what a shotgun aficionado could only call a “full choke” pattern over the side of the tank, the living room and the previously recumbent, but now damply upright and indignant, specimen of man’s best friend. What our hero has just seen is the bane of all reef aquarists, his first large “bristle” worm. It won’t be his last...Nor should it be!

Reef aquarium information is a hit or myth proposition. Having been an aquarist of one sort or another for some 45 years, and a marine aquarist as well as marine scientist for 30 of them, the state of aquarium lore both amuses and frustrates me. Probably due to the complexity of the natural systems that we get our animals from, and that we try in some regards to emulate, the amount of mythinformation that has accrued in the reef hobby is truly impressive. It seems, at times, that we are dealing with a Baron Munchausen’s “Guide To The Care Of Coral Reef Animals,” and that it is tangent upon reality only due to accident.

Aquarium Myth #349:
Bristle Worms Should Be Removed From Your Tank Because They Are: _________.
1) Dangerous,
2) Eat Corals,
3) Eat Clams,
4) Eat... Anything (as long as it is expensive or desirable), and
5) They Are Ugly.
This is multiple choice myth. Pick one, any combination of, or all of the above to complete it.

Don’t Make The Common Mythtakes About Bristle Worms!

The reality of the situation is considerably different from the myth. To start at the beginning we need to know just what exactly our hero in the scenario above was dealing with. Bristle worms are, well, worms with bristles. And, there are not a just a few of them either. Bristle worms are related to the common earthworms in their basic anatomy. That means they are segmented. In other words, their body is made of repeated units, or modules, called segments. In earthworms the segments look like rings, or “annuli,” of tissue. This appearance gives the worm’s animal group the name, Annelida. Most folks call them annelid worms.

Bristle worms differ from earthworms by being mostly found in marine environments, whilst earthworms are mostly terrestrial. They also have appendages on their bodies, whereas the earthworms are smooth. Finally, all earthworms are hermaphrodites, having both sexes simultaneously active in the same body, whereas most bristle worms have but one gender per worm.

Probably the most obvious difference between these types of annelids, though, is the presence of appendages all along the sides of the bristle worm’s body. These appendages, which often look like small legs, are tipped in many bristles. The common name for the group, “bristle worms” is relatively apt. Biologists who study these worms call them Polychaete Worms. Sounds rather pretentious until you realize that “Poly” means “many” and “Chaeta” means “bristle.” So, polychaete worm can be translated into the common vernacular as the “worm with many bristles.” Bristle worm will do. Unfortunately, the name is used much too carelessly to be useful. As it turns out there are well over 10,000 described species of bristle worms, and a truly sizeable number of those can make it into reef aquaria.

(CONT. TO PART 2)

[jhnrb]

Narrow The Field

Even though there are a lot of bristle worms, and even though a lot of them may be potentially found in reef aquaria, by far and away the most common kinds of bristle worms likely to be encountered by aquarists are fireworms. About now, the average aquarist may think, “Uh-oh, anything with fire in the name doesn’t sound too good to me.” And the average aquarist would be right, but only to a point. Fireworms have specialized outer defensive bristles made of calcium carbonate. These are hollow and venom-filled. If touched, the bristles stick into whatever touches them and break releasing the venom which causes a burning sensation. If a fish should bite a fire worm, it gets a mouth of small hypodermic needle-like bristles all injecting venom into its mouth. The net result is that after one or two attempts, the fish will typically not attempt to eat a fire worm even if it is starving. The moral of this tale to an aquarist is clear, first, don’t eat fireworms! In fact, leave the worms alone and you won’t be hurt. If you need to pick them up, wear gloves or use forceps, tweezers, or tongs to avoid injecting yourself with fire worm juice. So, dash myth number 1, they really aren’t dangerous as long as you don’t eat them and if they are handled properly.

What About What They Eat?

Within the realm of the thousands of bristle worm species, there are certainly varieties that will eat just about everything. Possibly the most impressive are the huge, so-called “bobbit,” worms in the genus Eunice. These awesome animals reportedly can reach about an inch (2.5 cm) in diameter, and be up to 50 feet (15 m) long. They reputedly can launch themselves upwards out of the sand and grab fish up to 4 inches (10 cm) long which they then pull down under the sand to consume. Shades of Dune…

Occasionally, Eunice individuals or some related worms make their way into reef aquaria, probably in live rock, and they may cause problems. However, most bristle worms are not Eunicids! Not only do most worms not cause problems, they are, instead, positively beneficial. The myth that bristle worms are dangerous in reef tanks is a classic case of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. That kernel of knowledge is a classic. One species of fire worm, Hermodice carunculata, has been known for a long time to eat corals, particularly gorgonians. Unlike most worms, Hermodice is well-protected against predation and is commonly seen crawling around and eating its food. Somewhere in the dim dark pasts of the reef aquarium hobby, some less-than-astute individual made the leap of logic that went something like this: “If Hermodice is a fire worm, and Hermodice eats corals, then all fireworms must eat corals.” Unfortunately, this leap of logic ends with a resounding “splat” as the conclusion collides with reality. Most fireworms don’t eat corals; in fact, it appears that most fire worms, most especially the Eurythoe and Linopherus individuals most commonly found in reef tanks don’t eat anything that is living. These animals are scavengers, and very good ones, at that.

The fire worms most commonly found in reef aquaria are probably the best members of the so-called “clean up crew” that most aquarists can have. They eat excess food, detritus, and the remains of dead or dying individuals. While they will not attack living and healthy animals, they definitely will attack and eat an animal that is damaged and releasing blood or other tissue fluids. Because they are very adept at following scent trails and very active in their search for food, they will often find a dead or dying animal and remove all traces of it in very short order. Their fantastic ability as scavengers is likely the cause of the myth that they eat living prey. Most marine invertebrates will appear to be healthy all the time they are, for example, starving to death. If the animal finally succumbs to malnutrition, the worms will start to clean it up. If an aquarist wanders in and sees this occurring in a tank, they don’t see some diligent janitors. They see their prize specimen being consumed by some “ugly” worms! And, gasp and gadzooks, they think the worms have killed and eaten it! Well, the latter part of that conclusion is true, but the animal that is now food died of something else. As these worms don’t attack and kill animals, neither do their bristles sting corals or sea anemones, and they definitely don’t crawl up into the cavities inside a tridacnid clam, and start eating it. All of these “definite facts” are truly fine examples of aquarium mythology.

What fireworms do do, and do well, is clean up excess uneaten food and remove the recently deceased. Both of these tasks are of vital importance in reef tanks, as even a little time at reef temperatures is sufficient to turn a recently deed animal into a severely fouled aquarium. The beneficial fire worms are just about the most important animals that are available to aquarists for keeping their systems clean and functional. Perhaps, all an aquarist has to do to realize this is to contemplate the amount of “excess food” that it takes to grow a large population of the worms. Then, they can contemplate, what would happen to all that excessive nutrient if the fireworms were absent. In all likelihood, that food would have rotted and gone to foul the aquarium.

The moral of this little tale is that many hard and fast aquarium beliefs are myths. In this case, in particular, many of the “horrible” worms in reef aquaria are not only highly beneficial, but in most cases, absolutely necessary for the systems.

END.

[jhnrb]

FEEDING FISH ONLY TANKS

Fish-only aquariums typically do not have as much internal filtration and nutrient uptake as coral tanks. There may not be any live rock, or very little, and their may not be any live sand either.

The lack of live sand and live rock especially, greatly reduces the amount of internal filtration such a tank is capable of and, thus, nutrient recycling is low. Remember live rock is generally porous and harbors many many bacteria and its outsides are covered with a multitude amount of animals and animalcules.

Low recycling of nutrients results in a build-up of organic material and its breakdown products, leading to pollutant and nutrient rich water. We know these as nitrates, phosphates, silicates, dissolved organic material and dissovled organic carbon. There are others still but they do fit into the general categories listed.

Such water will give your animals problems and will, more than likely, result in the hard to control growth of micro algae, diatoms, red slime or cyanobacteria, possibly too many macro algae and so on.

In fish-only tanks you should be very careful when feeding. Less at a time is far better than larger quantities. You can always feed several times if you need to. It is in my experience better to feed small amounts more often. This gives the animals a chance to uptake or ingest the food stuffs you add and prevents them (or most of them) from ending up on the rocks and sand or bottom of the aquarium.

Feces contain digested and undigested matter that can further break down and pollute the water. Remove it on a regular basis if you can. Your fish-only tank will do better. Anything you remove cannot decay and can, therefore, not pollute the water.

Skimming removes pollution but, if the amount produced is greater than what the skimmer can remove, the nutrient and pollutant levels build up, with the ensuing problems associated with such.

Ensuring your skimmer is up to the task is important lest D.O.C. will start to rise and problems appear. Dissolved organic carbon lowers the water quality and, more often than not, leads to the appearance of cyanobacteria or red slime algae.

Do not overskim though as it may be detrimental to the animals. I wrote may, as no conclusive evidence regarding this is actually available. "I have often noticed though that if one skims too hard (especially in coral tanks as we shall see) that color loss and parasitic diseases may set in. Finding the right balance is the important thing and is hard to define". Quite a few hobbyists I have spoken to feel the same about overskimming especially when lots of corals are present in the tank. Seriously consider this as a growth limiting factor.

Use dissolved oxygen levels as a yardstick. If it is at suturation, or above, you are skimming enough and need not increase it. As time goes by we will learn more about skimming yet, and probably be able to adjust skimming levels so they are not detrimental to tank inhabitants. Right now this cannot be done with a great amount of certainty and accuracy. DO is therefore a good measurement to use to gauge how the tank's water is doing.

Skim and make sure that D.O. is high, that is the best we are able to do at this point.

Feeding should be geared towards the type of fish and what they can consume in a short period of time, say 2 minutes. If not all the food you dispense is eaten in that timeframe, you should reduce the amount. It is fine to feed several times a day as long as all the food is eaten and none drops to the bottom to decay (unless you have a fair numbers of bottom feeders). Keep an eye on what settles and remove it if it does not get eaten rapidly (say within 15-30 minutes of sinking to the bottom).

END.

[jhnrb]

Bio-Balls Don't Go Bad, They Just Get Dirty!

Why blame bio-balls for nitrate problems when it's not their fault?
How often have you read postings or email from aquarists who complain about their bio-balls going bad? The quickest and most often suggested solution we see to this problem is to, get rid of the bio-balls, now!! This is ridiculous. It is NOT the bio-balls contained in a wet/dry trickle or other type of biological filter that have gone "bad", but just like with an undergravel filter, it is the "lack of proper maintenance" that turns them into a nitrate factory.

It is only when bio-balls as well as other similar types of biological filtration mediums are allowed to become dirty and encrusted or embedded with broken down matter or dissolved organic compounds (DOCs) that they then start to contribute to the accumulation of nitrate in a saltwater aquarium or reef tank system.

There is no need to immediately trash or remove them, which should NOT been done in the first place because it can cause your whole system to crash, you just need to clean them up. Once this has been accomplished, and as long as this is the "sole source" generating the nitrate in the aquarium, with some water changes and by keeping to a good regular maintenance routine after that, nitrate and bio-balls woes in all likelihood will decrease.

How can you tell if the bio-balls are dirty?

One way you can test to see if it's time for a cleaning is by ruffling or lightly stirring up the top layer of the bio-balls. When this is done you will see gunk break loose from them. The only problem is that in most all cases the mass of the organic matter settles in the bottom layer of the bio-chamber, because it gets pushed down by the water dispensed into the filter over time. You can stir the bio-balls up from the bottom to see how things look, but be careful doing this. If the filter is running and the output water goes directly back into the aquarium without being filtered first, it can shoot a bunch of the gunk right into the tank. To prevent this you can place a micron-mesh bag that is fine enough to catch the organic matter as the water is dispersed into the tank. To assist with cleaning up any possible organic matter that may get into the aquarium while you are testing for, as well as performing a cleaning, attach a simple hang-on-tank canister filter (read reviews & compare prices) for mechanical filtration and run it during and several hours afterwards.

Before You Start Cleaning

This is a procedure suggested to be performed only on aquariums that have been running for at least 4 months, because the nitrifying bacteria have had time to develop a strong population, and in all likelihood the bio-balls have begun to accumulate a substantial, but not overwhelming amount of DOCs.

As far as how often a cleaning needs to be done, if your system has been running for some time, say longer than 6 months, with no bio-ball maintenance at all, it may take a little time to get them cleaned up first. After that you can determine when cleanings need to be performed based on how your individual system is set up and functions. After a while you will know when to do it.

Even though periodic bio-ball cleanings are important, this procedure may weaken the nitrifying bacteria population that keeps the ammonia/nitrite in check in an aquarium. Therefore, it is vital that you do it properly to avoid stressing your system, and possibly causing new tank syndrome.

How To Clean Dirty Bio-Balls

It is NOT the bio-balls in a wet/dry trickle or other type of inert biological filter that go BAD! Just like with an undergravel filter, it is the "lack of proper maintenance" that turns them into a nitrate factory. If you periodically rinse them off and keep them clean, nitrate and bio-balls woes should decrease, as long as this is the sole source of the nitrate problem in the aquarium.

*Difficulty: Easy
*Time Required: 30 minutes or less

Here's How:
Place some new saltwater in a five gallon plastic bucket, or any other type of good sized deep plastic container. This is where you will rinse and clean the bio-balls off. If you are planning for a water change, water removed from the aquarium may be used for this as well.
Turn off the filter.
Remove about 1/4 of the bio-balls from the filter chamber and place them into the container with the saltwater.
Stir and swish the bio-balls around in the saltwater to break all the gunk or organic matter loose that is stuck on them. If they are extremely dirty, you may have to repeat this step. DO NOT scrub the bio-balls! Just allow the saltwater to do the job, nothing more than that.

Scoop the rinsed bio-balls out and place them back into the filter bio-chamber. A plastic kitchen colander works great for this, but any type of cup or small container with drain holes in it will do. The bio-balls come out, the yucky water stays behind.

Restart the filter.

Test for the appearance of ammonia every few days for a week, then every several days over another week after that. If the testss read near zero after this time, it is ok to repeat the process. If ammonia does appear, wait until readings drop back to zero, then wait another couple of weeks after that before repeating the process with the next batch of bio-balls.

Tips:
This procedure is suggested to be performed on aquariums that have been running for at least 4 months, because the nitrifying bacteria have had time to develop a strong population, and in all likelihood the bio-balls have begun to accumulate a substantial, but not overwhelming amount of DOCs (Dissolved Organic Compounds) on them.

NEVER use freshwater to clean the bio-balls, and NEVER clean all the bio-balls at once, as this in all likelihood WILL cause your system to crash! Because this procedure strips away and weakens the nitrifying bacteria population present on the bio-balls that the aquarium relies on to keep ammonia and nitrite in check, only clean about 1/4 of the bio-balls during any one cleaning session.
If your system has been running for sometime, say longer than 6 months, with no bio-ball maintenance at all, it may take a little time to get them cleaned up first. After that you can determine when periodic cleanings need to be performed based on how your individual system is set up and functions. You'll learn to know when it needs to be done.

Test for cleaning by lightly stirring up the top layer of the bio-balls. You will see gunk break loose. The only problem here is that in most all cases the mass of the organic matter settles in the bottom layer. You can stir the bio-balls up from the bottom, but be careful doing this because you may get a bunch of gunk shot into the tank if the filter output goes directly into the tank.
This procedure can be used to clean not only bio-balls, but other types of biological filtration mediums as well.

What You Need:
5 gallon plastic bucket
new or used saltwater
plastic kitchen colander
ammonia test kit

END

[jhnrb]

Stocking rates primer.
From Marine Depot articles
Clears up some but not all of the inch per gal issue for fish.

Inches to gallons, and creating a midget fish? The full explanation...

When asking about proper stocking rates for both fresh and salt water aquariums, the most often offered yet most misunderstood advice is the phrase "one inch of fish to a gallon of water" (or, in salt water circles, one inch of fish to three to five gallons of water). This mini-article will properly explain the basis behind the phrase and how it translates into deciding upon stocking rates for your aquarium (from a biological load and water quality perspective only - behavioral issues are not discussed but may have to come into play, such as territory requirements of the particular species). This is not scientifically exact, but it is a very good guideline/rate calculating system to use to ensure that the starting hobbyist won't crash their tank by stocking it with a load greater than the tank environment can easily handle and process.

Definition of an inch

This refers to a freshwater fish that at one inch long has the same body mass as a livebearer, like a molly, or a tetra, meaning a fish that is about 1/2 inch thick, and 1/2-3/4 inches tall. The saltwater equivalent would be a small damselfish, like the blue devil damsel, that is about 3/4" tall, and 1/2" (app) thick.

Meaning of a gallon

The gallon is the amount of water needed to sufficiently dilute the waste level the fish creates, to enable it to be comfortable, until the filtration can break the wastes down into less poisonous substances. So, a 1" long molly will need a gallon of water to dilute it's urine, CO2, and fecal matter to a level it can "deal with" until the wastes get carried to the filtering process (whatever that may be). A 1" damsel will need 3-5 gallons of water for the same "comfort level".

What does all this mean?

NOW, keep in mind the whole body mass issue mentioned above. If we take a different type of fresh water fish, like an Oscar, for example, we can see that the load factor, or biomass, per running inch, is not the same as a molly. The Oscar is both thicker and taller than the molly is, and represents a far higher load factor. (Think of how many mollies can fit into the space occupied by the Oscar's body - it will take at least 20-30 mollies, to equal the body mass of a 5" long Oscar, if they were fit next to and stacked upon one another like sardines). Every running inch of Oscar is at least twice as thick as a molly and quite a few times (15-20 times the height for an adult Oscar) taller. A 5" long Oscar would require a 20-30 gallon tank, ALL BY ITSELF, for proper comfort and life support-with filtration. A full grown Oscar can completely fill a 75-100 aquarium by itself, from a carrying capacity standpoint.

Metabolism also plays a role for the determination - a sedate fish will place less load factor on a system than an active fish will, per the same amount of biomass, as the more active fish needs to eat more, and will produce more waste, to support the same amount of actual biomass.

The same rules apply for a saltwater tank, though the ratios are a bit different, and the metabolism factor also needs to be considered. For example, a Tang requires far more space and swimming room than it's body mass alone would lead one to figure - they require very large amounts of oxygen, and release larger amounts of CO2, per unit of body mass, than a lionfish does, for example, and their behavior demands lots of swimming room.

Can a cube create a midget? (The "tank size affecting fish size" myth exposed and explained)

Many years ago, before the underlying concepts of waste management in closed systems and how they affect growth rates in fish were understood, people who kept aquaria didn't really understand the need for performing water changes. They also noticed that fish tended to stop growing at an earlier age in smaller tanks, than they did in larger tanks. This lead to the erroneous assumption that the physical size (dimensions) of the tank determined the physical size of the fish. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's why:

All animals will reach the size they grow to as a function of their genetic potential and their ability to take advantage of that potential. To illustrate, let's look at people - even siblings grow up to be different heights because the genes that determine growth rate and final size are different for everyone. As long as one receives proper nutrition and exercise, and is kept in good health, one will reach the maximum height that one's genes will allow for. Raising a child in a bathroom, will not turn them into a midget, as long as they get proper diet and perform calisthenics/exercise, have access to good fresh air and water to breathe and drink, (though they may go mental from boredom ;p ), and aren't subject to re-breathing their own CO2, or re-consuming their own waste. Also to illustrate, if you try to keep an elephant in a 6'x6' cube from birth, it will not become a cube shaped elephant measuring 6'x6' as an adult. You will end up with a busted cube. ;p

If an Oscar is kept in a 20 gallon tank, that is then plumbed/piped into a 1000 reservoir system, it will reach a foot long in spite of the physical size of the tank-since it's wastes are not building up in the system to the point of interfering biologically with it's growth potential. Alternatively, you can achieve the same result by performing daily water changes. One of the main waste products that fish produce is an anti-growth hormone, the function of which is most likely to ensure that the largest fish from a group of offspring, get a better survival chance than their slower growing siblings, to help increase the percentage of faster growing (and therefore better suited for survival) offspring in successive generations. This is often observed in closed systems.

When rearing fry:

Out of any group of fry, a small percentage will always start to grow faster than the rest of the group, and that smaller percentage will ALWAYS remain the largest. If the larger fry are then removed, another amount of fry will then "spurt" in growth, while the remainder does not, and so on. This is due to the presence of that anti-growth hormone. Again, water changes, or a corresponding increase of waste dilution ability due to an increase in water volume, will mitigate the effects and concentration of the levels of that hormone in the water.

The bottom line is that the physical dimensions of any aquarium have nothing to do with the end size of a fish, the management and water quality do.