pledosophy

Wow that sounds way more dismal then I meant it to be. You would be one of very few in the world to breed them. I would be happy to help you. It would require a lot of work. It is the kind of thing you have to do everyday, without missing a feeding, or cleaning etc. It is a commitment. If your willing to make that commitment, the information is out there and I would be happy to help you along the way. Going from a 12g eclipse tank to a couple hundred gallons of nurseries, and propagation tanks is a huge jump, so if it is more then you are ready for, there is no shame in that. The time committment is huge, there is a reason I no longer raise fry.

Wow that sounds way more dismal then I meant it to be. You would be one of very few in the world to breed them. I would be happy to help you. It would require a lot of work. It is the kind of thing you have to do everyday, without missing a feeding, or cleaning etc. It is a commitment. If your willing to make that commitment, the information is out there and I would be happy to help you along the way. Going from a 12g eclipse tank to a couple hundred gallons of nurseries, and propagation tanks is a huge jump, so if it is more then you are ready for, there is no shame in that. The time committment is huge, there is a reason I no longer raise fry.

I believe the species you have are comes. A close up of the head would confirm, but that tail is a pretty good give away. For the head shot I want to see that crown type thing on the top of the head. Some have 4 points, some have 5 in the shape of a star. Some are flat, some are rounded, etc, etc. It is distinctive to the different species. Due to the tail marking I would be 95% sure or so it is a comes, but I have been fooled by an erectus with similiar markings before. I am not the best at syngnathid ID, which is why I like both. Comes (pronounced Comb es) usually need pods as a first food. Which means you would need to culture enough pods to feed all of those fry 6 times a day. Comes are very rare to be CB and are usually imported as WC's. I only know of two people who have sold them as CB and one was later to reveal he was treating the fry with antibiotics (which is very, very dangerous and this news caused him to go out of business and be generally shunned from the community). I would ask your Mom if she went through the WC precautions. If not, don't bother with the fry. If she did, she will speak of things like prazipro, and fenbenadzole, fresh water dips etc. Comes fry is a serious under taking. If you want advice on how to do it, I can try to help you with it, but unless you have a serious amount of time, money, and space I would not bother with it. Sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for. Better to tell you the truth then let you get to far into it IMO. Best of Luck.

I believe the species you have are comes. A close up of the head would confirm, but that tail is a pretty good give away. For the head shot I want to see that crown type thing on the top of the head. Some have 4 points, some have 5 in the shape of a star. Some are flat, some are rounded, etc, etc. It is distinctive to the different species. Due to the tail marking I would be 95% sure or so it is a comes, but I have been fooled by an erectus with similiar markings before. I am not the best at syngnathid ID, which is why I like both. Comes (pronounced Comb es) usually need pods as a first food. Which means you would need to culture enough pods to feed all of those fry 6 times a day. Comes are very rare to be CB and are usually imported as WC's. I only know of two people who have sold them as CB and one was later to reveal he was treating the fry with antibiotics (which is very, very dangerous and this news caused him to go out of business and be generally shunned from the community). I would ask your Mom if she went through the WC precautions. If not, don't bother with the fry. If she did, she will speak of things like prazipro, and fenbenadzole, fresh water dips etc. Comes fry is a serious under taking. If you want advice on how to do it, I can try to help you with it, but unless you have a serious amount of time, money, and space I would not bother with it. Sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for. Better to tell you the truth then let you get to far into it IMO. Best of Luck.

I think why this is doable is because the tank is so small. I would never do this with my 120 or 125, but a 40g, I'd be completely comfortable, especially if you get a couple guys who can do it slow and level.

Text sent. Look forward to the reply

Are you getting rid of the probes too or just the reactor? I'm looking for some pH probes.

No cycle, nothing was disturbed more then it would be with a large waterchange. My rock and sand stayed in place. A 40g won't be that heavy. Probably less then 500lbs with water. Take half the water our and two semi fit guys should be able to move it a few feet without to much trouble. JME Like I said, I moved my 65g by myself.

Fish thought it was a roller coaster.

I had to move my 65g 5 feet to the left. I drained most of the water, left the rock in place, and just picked the thing up and moved it, by myself. Had to have been less then 300 lbs at that point. Not to tough

Can you post a picture of the seahorse? A full body shot and then as clear of a shot of the head as you can. A profile of the head is best so I can clearly see the cornet. At this point, get rid of the fry, no real point to try. If you want to be prepared in the future I can lay out a regiment for you, but not until I know the species. Some species can accept bbs under 4 hours old to start, some need to be started on rotifers and pods. First food is a big deal. Fry can typically survive for 5 to 7 days without eating at all before they die. Keeping that volume and that die off in a 12g eclipse tank is more likely to kill the parents. The fry will not survive in that type of environment. It is not only a waste of time to try, but also dangerous for the existing stock. I have been keeping seahorses for the last 10 years or so. I can get you the info you need, but don't want to guess at it and tell you the wrong thing. If you have a member of the kuda complex and I give you advice for an erectus or a barbouri you are going to waste a lot of money and time to kill the fry. Same thing goes the other way. JME

I have some of the Long Polyp Tyree Green Leather frags, and quite a few nuclear green palys I'd love to give to someone starting out.

Do you know what species you have? Can't give advice without knowing the species.

I have a 125g mixed reef that is attached to a 35g refugium and a 65g cryptic tank. Both feed into a 75g sump(which actually holds about 30g of water). It has been the same for about a year now. I did not seed my cryptic tank. I see very little sponge growth at all, even though my reef display has a very good amount of sponge growth in it. I have stuck a non photosythetic gorg in my cryptic tank but other then that there is no sign of life in there. My refugium is over flowing with pods and worms. My reef is doing great 0 complaints. But other then the filtration from the 100 lbs of liverock I am not sure the cryptic tank is worth the electricity it uses. My plan now is to replace the floor in that room, and take the cryptic tank off line, instead hooking up a 90g which will be a display refugium of sorts. No fish, but some nice algaes and some type of shrimps that will breed for me. JME

I have a 125g mixed reef that is attached to a 35g refugium and a 65g cryptic tank. Both feed into a 75g sump(which actually holds about 30g of water). It has been the same for about a year now. I did not seed my cryptic tank. I see very little sponge growth at all, even though my reef display has a very good amount of sponge growth in it. I have stuck a non photosythetic gorg in my cryptic tank but other then that there is no sign of life in there. My refugium is over flowing with pods and worms. My reef is doing great 0 complaints. But other then the filtration from the 100 lbs of liverock I am not sure the cryptic tank is worth the electricity it uses. My plan now is to replace the floor in that room, and take the cryptic tank off line, instead hooking up a 90g which will be a display refugium of sorts. No fish, but some nice algaes and some type of shrimps that will breed for me. JME

Curious as the the reasoning behind going cryptic. Have you looked into sources for the starter kits?

I have a standard 90g with an internal overflow. Glass

I am interested. Let me get some pictures of what I have. So you can see, but I have the reactor, CO2 tank, and regulator.

I'm down for the cube if you still have it.

IME I have not seen a cycle when installing a CPR Large HOB refugium on a 44g tank.

I have been in the past and had a very good time there. Enjoy yourself.

Dude there are always other options besides breaking it down. GFO, Carbon Dosing, Skimmer, Macro Algae etc, etc, etc. I thought Clams were immune to Nem stings?

So you want to use cyano instead of algae? Personally I think certain species of macro algae are far more efficient at phosphate/nitrate, and ammonia removal then bacterias can be. The growth rates of racemosa, profliera, or taxifloria are unbelievably fast an ideal circumstances. While cyano can double every 20 minutes in ideal settings, for nutrient uptake it has nothing on algae. Really basic question for you. If cyano would infact grow at a pace where it could be used succsessfully to remove P from a tank, then why is it people have such a hard time getting rid of it? Some people fight it for many months. Some tanks have patches for years. If it were effective at nutrient removal, wouldn't the course of action for cyano be to let it run it's course as it would end very quickly when it consumed the available phosphate? Your first and second choice involve using bacteria, your third choice involves removing the bacteria you advocate in your second choice. Kind of odd. When you first mentioned soaking your LR, I assumed you were speaking of the process of cooking your rock, where you let it soak in clean salt water to remove stored organic matter. I did not realize you meant to actually kill the rock and start over. I believe cooking the rock which does preserve the life in the rock is a last resort. As for killing liverock, I think it is always a mistake. As the liverock stays in our tank the beneficial bacterias of that rock also multiply which in turn processes more of the waste. I am not referencing the Standard Model or Santa Monica's theories. I do not like algae scrubbers personally. I do like algae for nutrient export. IME your ratios are a bit off. I guess it would depend heavily on the type and amount of food used. The main food I feed my tank is very low in phosphates with the manufacturer claiming that the max ratio is .o1%. Perhaps this is why in my systems which are filtered by algae I have undetectable phosphate but detectable nitrate. However since there are bacteria in the tank that process nitrate without the need for phosphate, I can see why my nitrates are not sky high, even though I feed what everyone would deem a ridiculous amount a day. Lil backwards mate. Shimek claimed far superior results with the bigger footprint. He continues to report the size is needed for bacteria and microfauna production for the bed to be effective longterm. People using the smaller buckets get good results for filtration, but the food production, and creation of a living bed is not achieved. I never ran multiple RDSB's, sorry if that was unclear. I had a single 55g rubbermaid, almost filled to the top with sand and the current moving across the water. I just didn't see much benefit IME. I think part of the way DSB's can sustain longterm is the fauna that grows in them as well. It's not all chemistry, there is some biology in there as well. As for the old tank syndrome, I am really not all that worried. I have seen no evidence that is a real thing, just a theory some people subscribe to. But that is just my opinion.

I have been in the hobby a long time now, always a more biology less technology kinda guy. I don't run skimmers, I do 20% water changes every 6 months or so, I am a few months behind. I was originally introduced to reefing by Leng Sy, the refugium guy so for the most part I have run my systems for the last 12 years through a natural export philosophy, but for more reasons then just nutrient export. I respect your curiosity and I have a few basic questions for you. So my sand bed gets full of phosphate, and I use algae to export that nutrient. Why would the algae just not absorb the added phosphate from the sand bed when and if it started leaching? Phosphate+Nitrate= algae for the most part. Why would the natural process not work with stored P. Regarding changing the sand bed every few years. This is a very old school line of thought in my eyes. I am very happy with my well established sandbed and the benefits it provides with the anerobic bacteria that participates in the nitrogen cycle, as well as the micro fauna it produces. If it is just phosphate that is the fear here, are there not less expensive ways then replacing the sandbed? GFO is still cheaper then new sand. In reference to removing the live rock every few years, it kind of goes against the whole constructive ecosystem standpoint. If your rock is absorbing phosphate and your goal is to control the tank using biology at that point would you not just increase your algae population, or change your pruining style to increase growth (i.e. cutting the runners several times instead of yanking to expedite growth in species like prolifera or taxifloria). IME many hobbyists try to starve out certain strains of algaes, they have shown themselves to be very adept at finding and removing even undetectable levels of phosphate and nitrate. Your question if a remote DSB was ever constructed, several have been. They were the rage for a year or so. I believe it was Shimeks writing about the lack of overall value they would have if the footprint was less then 4 foot by 2 foot and the depth was less then 18", however many people using a 5g bucket on a 100g or so system reported great results. Best reported results came if the bucket was covered and no light was allowed in. An increase in food production from the bed was increased as was the nutrient absortion with an increased size of the bed. Several reefers used 55g Rubbermaid trashcans with a couple of bulkheads inline with there sump feeds, some still do. There were some people who adapted these style of sandbeds into modular units by tying multiples together. I tried this myself but never found much benefit likely IMO because of the already large population of algae that I use in my systems. JMO

Keep it up. Cyclops is your friend for the pests you have there, water changes to keep the nitrites in check, don't worry to muchabout nitrates unless they breach 100. I was able to get an aiptasia to 3 inches across before I knew it was a bad thing. I was target feeding it a cube of brine shrimp twice a day.