frogspawn :-(

[mr_z]

looks like it just fell apart and its all gone theres only that white stuff. and the mushroom in the background looks like it bubbled up in like two spots what can be wrong?

 

[The reefer]

Have u checked ur levels?

 

[Tank2379]

How are your lights these days? I would check for a Nitrate Spike if any.

 

[Smitty]

Sorry to hear that...yeah, definitely check your levels. Are all your corals looking poorly, or just those two?

 

[mr_z]

Havnt check levels in about two weeks. :-( all my corals except for a single green polyp look like this my lights need changing already I have the LEDs just trying to figure out how I'm going to mount the in the hood because I'm having a hard time figuring it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EricTheRed]

I'd do a water change asap, even if your param's are good. (Always check your param's 1st when things are off.) If your param's are good, you might want to run some fresh carbon. Something might have polluted your tank. You say that your lights need changing. Without more detail I can't comment for certain but my guess is that old bulbs shouldn't cause all your coral to stress out and die all at once.

 

[jcarlilesiu]

That sucks.

Our frogspawn acted all weird for a month or two about a year ago. Wouldn't come out, etc. Everything else was happy so we just let it be. Shortly thereafter it started splitting like crazy and looked great. Not sure why.

I would check parameters and keep an eye on your other LPS.

 

[SkullV]

I'd do a water change asap, even if your param's are good. (Always check your param's 1st when things are off.) If your param's are good, you might want to run some fresh carbon. Something might have polluted your tank. You say that your lights need changing. Without more detail I can't comment for certain but my guess is that old bulbs shouldn't cause all your coral to stress out and die all at once.

Sometimes hasty things like water changes can actually stress things and make things worst, especially in very small nano tanks. Carbon is a good idea though.

I would test first and act second.

 

[jcarlilesiu]

I am under the train of thought that water changes are always good.

Whenever I see anything that looks abnormal in my tank, a water change is always the first course of action and only further justified by parameters being off.

 

[EricTheRed]

Sometimes hasty things like water changes can actually stress things and make things worst, especially in very small nano tanks. .

Never heard a wc could be a bad thing, but then I've never had a nano. Interesting info.

 

[EricTheRed]

I am under the train of thought that water changes are always good.

Whenever I see anything that looks abnormal in my tank, a water change is always the first course of action and only further justified by parameters being off.

That's what I've always thought.

 

[SkullV]

I am under the train of thought that water changes are always good.

Whenever I see anything that looks abnormal in my tank, a water change is always the first course of action and only further justified by parameters being off.

Never heard a wc could be a bad thing, but then I've never had a nano. Interesting info.

That's what I've always thought.

A hasty water change will not only skew your test results, but again, it can cause a large shift very quickly in a small tank. In a larger tank like we have the water change isn't as much of an issue.

 

[EricTheRed]

I take it you are under the train of thought of medicate first diagnose later as well? Cut first measure later?

A hasty water change will not only skew your test results, but again, it can cause a large shift very quickly in a small tank. In a larger tank like we have the water change isn't as much of an issue.

I'd do a water change asap, even if your param's are good. (Always check your param's 1st when things are off.) .

I did recommend the "diagnosis" as a starting point it obviously wouldn't make sense to test param's after a wc.

"... it can cause a large shift very quickly in a small tank." This is a good point, but if his param's are off to the extent that they are killing his coral, I still stand by my recommendation to do a wc. To avoid a potential drastic shift caused by a big wc in a very small tank, multiple smaller wc's could be done. In any event, I would personally do a wc if all my corals were distressed, especially if one has already died.

 

[SkullV]

I did recommend the "diagnosis" as a starting point it obviously wouldn't make sense to test param's after a wc.

"... it can cause a large shift very quickly in a small tank." This is a good point, but if his param's are off to the extent that they are killing his coral, I still stand by my recommendation to do a wc. To avoid a potential drastic shift caused by a big wc in a very small tank, multiple smaller wc's could be done. In any event, I would personally do a wc if all my corals were distressed, especially if one has already died.

My comment was aimed more at jcarlilesiu in terms of his change first test later approach.

Multiple small water changes are ALWAYS better than a single large water change. I agree with doing a water change, but test first. Also like you said carbon is always good in these situations just in case it is a chemical issue.

Not disagreeing with you, just saying, test first. That is unless you know the cause, like chopped up anemone (Frankie ).

 

[FishBeard]

I agree that TESTS come first and foremost to know what you are dealing with. If tests come back normal, it's most likely a foreign contaminant that a regular water change and temporary increase of fresh carbon should be able to filter out. You would be surprised how easy you can introduce something to the water if not paying attention. The most simple way is just forgetting to wash your hands and dry with a clean "fish" towel as we call it. Fabric softener doesn't belong in a tank, or on any towels you come in contact with on days you work on your tank. This is just one example, there are plenty more when you sit back and think about just how many ways you can accidentally pollute your tank.

 

[jcarlilesiu]

I take it you are under the train of thought of medicate first diagnose later as well? Cut first measure later?

You assumptions are incorrect.

While keeping our tanks, we are unable to maintain the stable parameters found in the natural environment, one of which is stabilizing water chemistry including micro and macro nutrients. Though we attempt to maintain these parameters artificially through dosing and other means, the only true recourse we have to "reset" the manipulation we intentionally create is a water change. In this hobby, and in my line of thought, a water change is the only true return to a natural condition we can create inside of our tanks.

As such, this is the exact opposite of medicating or manipulating conditions in the tank as a first response.

 

[SkullV]

You assumptions are incorrect.

While keeping our tanks, we are unable to maintain the stable parameters found in the natural environment, one of which is stabilizing water chemistry including micro and macro nutrients. Though we attempt to maintain these parameters artificially through dosing and other means, the only true recourse we have to "reset" the manipulation we intentionally create is a water change. In this hobby, and in my line of thought, a water change is the only true return to a natural condition we can create inside of our tanks.

As such, this is the exact opposite of medicating or manipulating conditions in the tank as a first response.

So water change first test later? Good luck with that. I'll stick with knowing what the problem is before I act, hopefully others will too.

 

[jcarlilesiu]

Multiple small water changes are ALWAYS better than a single large water change.

I disagree.

Water changes should always be conducted matching the temperature and salinity closely to existing conditions and then adjusting slightly.

Meaning a small water change with a larger degree of difference in various parameters could be significantly more harmful than a large one that is conducted properly.

Our testing in this hobby is primitive at best, and the kits that we use (even the expensive ones) are good to indicate potential issues or conditions which may be detrimental, but are unable to detect many foreign toxins or otherwise harmful contaminates or even natural chemistry that we don't test for.

I do agree with testing, as an attempt to determine what is wrong, but not as a means of gauging if a water change is beneficial.

Water changes are ALWAYS beneficial.

 

[FishBeard]

So water change first test later? Good luck with that. I'll stick with knowing what the problem is before I act, hopefully others will too.

Everyone has the right to handle their tank how they want, whether water change or test comes first. If the argument continues I will put an end to it, as it's obvious where things are heading in this conversation.

 

[jcarlilesiu]

David Saxby conducts a 45-50% water change on his 2800+ gallon aquarium twice per year.

The idea that water changes should be feared in any regard, for fear of "shocking" the system is incorrect in my opinion, so long as the water change is conducted properly.