Fish die in 12 hours...coral and clam live

[fastragtop]

Hi, I have a 24 gal NanoCube. about a month ago I bought 4 new fish. Small gobies. When I got home with them I acclimated them and released them. I has a clown and a damsel already. They looked like they were breathing hard when I got home. The next morning all the fish died. I have since tried 3 times to add a fish but it is dead by morning. I have no ammonia, nitrates, nitrites or phosphates.
Doing well in my tank are a clam, sea cucumber, snails and crabs, starfish, green polyps, and an open brain, I have done 3 (4 gal) water changes and put in a lot of carbon. I also have a lot of hair algae. My bulbs are 11 months old and I am going to order new ones soon.
Thank you if you have any ideas I could try.
Don

 

[LauraCline]

A parasite/disease such as velvet is probably the culprit here. It kills fast and would not affect inverts.

 

[fastragtop]

What would you recommend I do for this?

 

[mr. clown man]

when you found them dead were they covered in white slime or somthing like that? if so you must let your tank run for 6 to 8 weeks with no fish while doing regular water changes.

 

[MattL]

That is a lot of livestock for such a small tank, as evidenced by your hair algae problem.

If there's no signs of disease, I would suspect an ammonia or nitrite spike. It doesn't matter that your test returned a zero reading. The ammonia could have come and gone before you had the time to test.

How old is your tank? What do you use for filtration?

Matt

 

[BangkokMatt]

I would leave the tank fishless, turn off the lights for a few days (to calm down the algae) and do a series of 70 - 100% water changes (nice and easy with a 24g).
When things are looking good add a single fish and monitor it for a few weeks.

Also take heed of MattL's advice. Ammonia spiking is easy to achieve in small tanks.

 

[jimmy n]

Might be an oxygenation issue. How is the flow?

 

[MattL]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14152677#post14152677 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jimmy n
Might be an oxygenation issue. How is the flow?

That is an excellent point. Hypoxia can kill fish and leave inverts alive.

Matt

 

[missippboy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14152646#post14152646 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BangkokMatt
I would leave the tank fishless, turn off the lights for a few days (to calm down the algae) and do a series of 70 - 100% water changes (nice and easy with a 24g).
When things are looking good add a single fish and monitor it for a few weeks.

Also take heed of MattL's advice. Ammonia spiking is easy to achieve in small tanks.

NEVER DO A 100% WATER CHANGE!!
You contradict yourself by saying 75-100% (nice and easy)?? NO WAY!!

10-20% is nice and easy, stick to that, and you should be fine. There are tons of reasons the fish could have died. IMO adding 2 fish at a time in a 24g is the max.

 

[fastragtop]

I have twice added a small single damsel about 2 weeks apart and they were both dead by morning. I have good water flow. 2 pumps one is through a UV light. The fish have no white slime on them. The tank has been running 11 months. Some of the corals have been in there since beginning.

 

[BangkokMatt]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14154383#post14154383 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by missippboy
NEVER DO A 100% WATER CHANGE!!
You contradict yourself by saying 75-100% (nice and easy)?? NO WAY!!

10-20% is nice and easy, stick to that, and you should be fine. There are tons of reasons the fish could have died. IMO adding 2 fish at a time in a 24g is the max.

And why would you never do a 100% water change? In fact, Calfo only ever does 100% water changes. So...can you elaborate on your post.

 

[BangkokMatt]

Calfo - "That all said, if this tank is less than 75 gallons, I'd suggest you spend your supplement money allotment on extra sea salt and just do larger, more frequent water changes. I do 50-100% wcs weekly on my smaller tanks (under 75 gall)"

Source - Marine Depot forums.

I will find the published article regarding 100% wc's later.

Bourneman also uses the same method and Fenner advocates it but doean't use it on his systems.
I know reefers who 100% water change frequently with great success.

missippboy - why pull out only 10 - 20% of potentially poor water when you can pull it all out.
And.....how am I contradicting myself exactly????

 

[missippboy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14156366#post14156366 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BangkokMatt
And why would you never do a 100% water change? In fact, Calfo only ever does 100% water changes. So...can you elaborate on your post.

Oh well excuse me! I didn't realize that Calfo was the only one who ever had an aquarium....

Good, consistent water quality is the single most important element of a healthy aquarium. To maintain water quality, with beneficial bacteria, a regular schedule of partial water changes is essential for all aquariums. The reasons why partial not complete water changes are so important is based off the concepts of Basic Aquarium Water Parameters and The Nitrogen Cycle.

If you would like for me to elaborate on the beneficial bacteria and the nitrogen cycle I would be glad to. I would hate for you to misinform anyone else.

 

[BangkokMatt]

I don't need you to "elaborate on the beneficial bacteria and the nitrogen cycle" but rather how a 100% water change would be harmful to to beneficial bacteria and to how it would impact on creating nitrogen cycle. As for "basic water parameters", well those are easy to match with made up water. That's what you should be doing as a matter of course - whether it be a 20% wc or a 100% wc.

I merely used Calfo as a reference point. imo he's a fair reference.

I'm still not sure how I contradicted myself or how I am misinforming people and I'm still not clear on what you are trying to say

 

[adtravels]

Beneficial bacteria in rocks and sand alot less in the water.
Large water changes are fine in fact in some cases essential .

IMO

 

[adtravels]

Of course a seasoned reefkeeper would excercise caution with this parctice ensuring the key parameters match the existing tank water as closely as possible.

 

[missippboy]

I feel as though my time will only be wasted if I further explain myself. But, here goes....
Microscopic beings called nitrifying or beneficial bacteria, whose role in nature is that of decomposers of nitrogen compounds. In an aquarium, these bacteria only exist in very small numbers (in the water, in/on the rocks, etc). By changing such a large amount of water you will be throwing away a large number of those bacteria that exist in the water and possibly disrupt or remove them from the sand during the change. But, none the less, the bacteria that is in the water is what we depend on for the formation of good nitrifying bacterial colonies. These colonies are what we rely on in order to ensure a healthy life in our aquarium, by aiding in the break down of Ammonia and Nitrite.

Out of all the sites and books I have read, I have repeatedly read not to do more than a 50% water change. 50% being the last resort. Never have I read that if you run into a small problem (much less 4 fish dieing but corals still living) do a 100% water change.

I believe the latter is less desirable since the water chemistry changes more dramatically at once, putting more stress on the fish, due to the removal of most the aquarium bacteria during the large water change.

 

[MattL]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14158460#post14158460 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by missippboy
I feel as though my time will only be wasted if I further explain myself. But, here goes....
Microscopic beings called nitrifying or beneficial bacteria, whose role in nature is that of decomposers of nitrogen compounds. In an aquarium, these bacteria only exist in very small numbers (in the water, in/on the rocks, etc). By changing such a large amount of water you will be throwing away a large number of those bacteria that exist in the water and possibly disrupt or remove them from the sand during the change. But, none the less, the bacteria that is in the water is what we depend on for the formation of good nitrifying bacterial colonies. These colonies are what we rely on in order to ensure a healthy life in our aquarium, by aiding in the break down of Ammonia and Nitrite....

While the facts you state are correct, your conclusion is incorrect.

A 100% water change can and is routinely done in emergency situations. I would personally do a series of ~75% changes instead.

The risk of a 100% water change is not loss of beneficial bacteria, but a change in water chemistry; in any established reef tank, the number of nitrifying bacteria in the water column are negligible compared to those on fixed surfaces (rock, sand, etc.).

That said, there are cases where a 100% change is necessary, and the OP's situation certainly could be considered one of them.

Matt

 

[missippboy]

Well, thanks for your input. I will stick to my routine and hope not for one of your "emergencies".

 

["Umm fish?"]

In an aquarium, these bacteria only exist in very small numbers

Well, that's not true.

If there are enough bacteria in a liquid culture to make the culture barely cloudy, counting the cells commonly reveals nearly one hundred million bacteria per milliliter

From: http://www.disknet.com/indiana_biolab/b038.htm

Also, bacteria population doubling times are incredibly fast.

If conditions are just right, one bacterium could become a BILLION (1,000,000,000) bacteria in just 10 hours through binary fission!

From: http://www.microbeworld.org/know/reproduction.aspx

Conditions like, say, seawater with food like fish waste.

I'd say it'd only take a day or so, if that, for your bacteria population to re-establish itself completely from those remaining in biofilms and inside the rocks or sandbed after a 100% water change.