Help! All the fish are dead...

[dakota9]

JennM;334852 wrote: Canisters are IMO a poor choice for SW. They are great in planted tanks (FW)... because they keep O2 low, CO2 high, which can also help keep pH a bit low... and nutrient levels high - all things that are great for a FW planted tank.Jenn

I would disagree with this statement. I've ran both canister and sump. People throw down on canisters because of the lack of oxygenation associated with using a closed canister, yet will hail as much as a 10 gal sump. C'mon, the water flowing through the canister just left the skimmer moments prior (we are talking 10 to 20 times turn over in a reef), how oxygen deprived can the water in the canister filter be?

Presonally, my water quality was much better when I was running a canister. I consider both methods to have their own pros and cons, but really dont think oxygenation plays a roll when a skimmer is present.

 

[dakota9]

DannyBradley;334920 wrote: In every nano system I've seen, there's a bag of biological media after the sponge to serve the purpose of keeping a culture of bacteria alive inside the filter should you kill what's living on the sponge.

I didn't see that in that tank, and copme to rthink of it, mine only came with a single souce of filtration, which was bioballs which have been replaced.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Dakota9;334919 wrote:

Chemicals that may passively enter the tank may cause a reactive event, such as destructioon of the biofilter, or swinging pH, etc. But how does residual soap, lotion, etc, suddenly, and acutely kill fish? Sure, its bad for them, but how would a trace amount of this do this. Again, if we were talking about squeezing a container of lotion into the tank, that would be one thing, but we are talking are trace amounts that incidentally enter the water column, yes? quote]


Trace amounts of Irukandji jellyfish venom can kill a 200 pound man.....

Whose to say what unkown substances could kill a fish? We all know how sensitive ocean fauna is to copper.

Whose to say?

Yeah, but were not talking about jellyfish toxins or similar. Youre kinda proving my point- "who's to say?" Exactly correct. We know that these chemicals (lotions, candles, fresheners, etc) are not toxic to most terrestrial animals, except in extreme amounts. Could they be toxic to fish? Sure. But, what is more likely? A previously unstudied, unknown, and unexplainable poisoning caused by a remedial exposure, or a biological imbalance causing a toxic biological by product? Especially when that exact toxic byproduct has been found? That is my only point. Like I mentioned before, try to see the forest through the trees.

But, as I mentioned before, and as Jenn concurred, we will never know.

 

[dakota9]

JennM;334921 wrote: If the simple action of rinsing a filter pad/sponge/cartridge (insert media here) under the faucet could cause a wipeout, I'd have at least 40 maintenance tanks and countless hundreds (YES, hundreds) of customers in a constant state of wipeout.

In the oops-induced wipeouts I have seen - caused by lotion etc., the water tested just fine (all parameters within acceptable numbers, and consistent with other recent tests of the same water - no sudden changes). If it happened overnight and they come to me with a water sample the next morning, I find it hard to fathom that enough ammonia/nitrite could have come and GONE in ~12 hours or less to wipe out an entire tank of fish, and parameters return to zero by the time I get a sample.

Of course there are all kinds of other "what ifs" that we can't test for without sending it to a lab (and who does that?)

We can debate this til we're blue in the face - I think we've all made our points. We all have valid points, many possibilities - but in reality we may not know.

As a precaution, in the OP's circumstance, I would likely do another 20% water change or so, add a polyfilter which can pull a variety of nasties including ammonia, heavy metals and other potential risky compounds, wait a while and then after testing again, cautiously begin adding fish again.

Jenn

+10 Agreed

With maybe the addition of running purgen. It bonds with all sorts of nasty stuff.....

 

[dakota9]

jmaneyapanda;334938 wrote:

Yeah, but were not talking about jellyfish toxins or similar. Youre kinda proving my point- "who's to say?" Exactly correct. We know that these chemicals (lotions, candles, fresheners, etc) are toxic to mots terrestrial animals, except in extreme amounts. Could they be toxic to fish Sure. But, what is more likely? A previously unstudied, unknown, and unexplainable poisoning caused by a remedial exposure, or a biological imbalance causing a toxic biological by product? Especially when that exact toxic byproduct has been found? That is my only point. Like I mentioned before, try to see the forest through the trees.

But, as I mentioned before, and as Jenn concurred, we will never know.

As Jenn pointed out, systems would crash right and left if it were so easily done as you suggest. Its not, plain and simple.

 

[jennm]

Concerning canisters... it's not "impossible" to run a successful reef with one - but most would agree it's not the *best* way to run one.

I've encountered so many canister-filtered tanks that had nitrates running into the hundred plus range over the years... mainly because they were allowed to go biological, and the imbalance of aerobic to anaerobic bacteria was upset so denitrification couldn't occur properly...

Not to mention that gas exchange is more difficult to achieve in a closed loop where the water doesn't have a chance to de-gas and pick up new oxygen (ie through a canister - no air is introduced as the water flows through). That can be addressed with other devices (ie powerheads) that agitate the surface.

I wouldn't ever sell a canister for a SW tank.

Jenn

 

[dakota9]

Well there you go Jenn, I changed my filters out quite regularly, in fact, I had two of each filter, one clean and ready to go at all times so I just popped open the canister, pulled out the dirty, but in the fresh and clean filter........ Jees, replacing the filters all together once every two weeks, seems like I'd have had a crash at some point in those 18 years, huh?

But I didn't. infact I generally ran excellent water quality. Canisters do require more maintance, but its a small price to pay.....

 

[jennm]

But were you using an API test kit??? ~~~

(sorta kinda inside joke)

Jenn

 

[dakota9]

I used the best available at the time.........

And I knew it was a joke w/o your needing to say so....

 

[savingnemo754]

Okay I am back from work and caught up on all the post and I must say DANG IT WAS BEAUTIFUL TODAY WHY WAS EVERYONE ON THE COMPUTER!!!! LOL

Seriously thank you all for the info.

I have found out that the tank is "very cloudy" today. Levels are all the same still. I am heading over there in the am to see what I can do and figure out. She may have some toxins around and will definitely ask her about lotion and others.

To answer Chris(fishscales) it was IO. I didn't know about the ammonia issue with IO.

I must also say that I have learned a lot for everyone on here today. We have some very smart member.

Once again thank you all.

 

[jennm]

I think I'm done arguing for the night

Bicker amongst yourselves!!!

Jenn

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Dakota9;334942 wrote:

As Jenn pointed out, systems would crash right and left if it were so easily done as you suggest. Its not, plain and simple.

No they wouldnt. Here is my theory on what happened. And I do understand that you dont agree with it. But, IN MY OPINION, it is far more plausible than the idea that a mystery toxin that ONLY effects fish with severity of immediate death (withtin hours) is to blame.

The rinsing of the biological filter in RO water caused an lack of ability to mineralize the toxic biological products effectively. As ammonia, and consequently nitrite WILL quickly kill fish, they likely quickly rose, and fatally impaired the fish. This is supported by the presence, albeit low, but presence nonetheless, of nitrite. This system, by the OP's post, was operated by 2 Rena XP canister filters, both of which were rinsed in RO water, which would eliminbate any Nitrosoma and Nitrobacter present. As this tank housed larger, very waste consumer fish (a yellow tang and a hippo tang), they were likely producing waste in the form of ammonia.

In nearly all other functioning reef tanks, there is an operable nitrifying system. Amounts of ammonia and nitrite can be handled without issue. However, if a portion or majority of teh nitrifying bacteria is removed, a similar result would also likely occur. This is also one of my contentions. That too often, people will blame "mystery poisons" for killing off livestock, and refuse to accept that it may be a far simpler and more common event. Such as damage to the biofilter. Tanks DO crash left and right. And maybe it IS due to biofilter instability, and people are just blaming some random, unknown "toxin", for somehow entering the system, and causing such severe effects, which just so happen to coincide with the effects of biological toxin poisoning.

At any rate, I get it. You and Jenn think that poisonous elements got into the tank from outsiode sources. I disgaree. Thanks and goodbye.

 

[dakota9]

LOL! I think Carl just told us we have disected this enough, thanks all

 

[jennm]

savingnemo754;334962 wrote:
To answer Chris(fishscales) it was IO. I didn't know about the ammonia issue with IO.

Any new saltwater not mixed/aged enough can test positive for ammonia.

Back in the dark ages when I began in this hobby you *HAD* to mix the water at least 24 hours without fail (more was better) or you risked a major ammonia spike.

Nowadays it's not so much, many formulas can be "ready to pour" in fairly short order but there is some minimal risk even today. I don't know many that test their NSW for ammonia though.

Jenn

 

[jmaneyapanda]

...

 

[savingnemo754]

Dakota9;334968 wrote: LOL! I think Carl just told us we have disected this enough, thanks all

Not at all!

If it was my tank at my house I could answer all questions and find the culprit. BUT since it is 30 miles away I have to investigate in the am.

I personally think it is a combination of all the stated issues. I'm not sure but i think that the water was mixed and poured in the tank not aged at all. Do the water temp was prob a little on the cold side. Add that with a weekend biological filter due to cleaning and you get a temp shock along with an ammonia spike the lasted longer than normal. Just my opinion. Plus maybe a toxin in the air or on hands.

Also found out today that she had a powerhead bite the dust yesterday.

 

[jennm]

LOL what kind of powerhead?

That could start a whole "Rio failure" discussion... I've witnessed some major disasters with those (But those were usually the 1700 models and up)!

I need to visit with the sandman - it's been a long week.

Jenn

 

[ralph atl]

what usually makes a tank cloudy besides sand thrashing around, ummm, bacteria bloom?

 

[dakota9]

mysterybox;334992 wrote: what usually makes a tank cloudy besides sand thrashing around, ummm, bacteria bloom?

A myrid of thingscan cause that. Who here has used a canister filter on a reef tank? Anyone? Who?

I used a Magnum 330 for atleast 10 years cleaning/replacing the filter media completely

 

[linda lee]

As far as how quickly outside contaminants can kill.

Well... IMO, pretty darn quickly.

One 12g nano at the school + contaminant introduced by a student = instant death

Teacher is 99.9% certain the contaminant was soap. And it was a small enough amount that although the water clouded up when it was introduced, it dissipated quickly.

Almost everything died immediately.

We also lost our first GDM eel when we installed one of those oil-diffusing air fresheners too near his 54g tank. He was as right as rain that day and less than 24 hours later, he was dead. Those things leave a film on the surface of the water which (we thought) probably hindered the exchange of oxygen.