Common Misconceptions In the Hobby

[Peter Eichler]

A lot of things seem to come up on the forums that are a result of recycled information that has been passed down through the years. I want to start this thread in hopes that this information will start to be widely accepted and known and hopefully dispell some of those "old hat" ways of thinking in the hobby. Some of these have mostly gone by the wayside and some are till in full swing and commonly believed in the hobby. Please feel free to add some of your own, add to my explanations, or even dispute my contributions.

1.) You should keep your PH at or between 7.8 and 8.3.

While those are acceptable levels this simply doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I've seen claims that the PH on Indonesian reefs (where most of the corals we keep will be found) is on average between 8.4 and 8.5. With readings often being higher and rarely below 8.0.

Conclusion: There is nothing to worry about if you PH is reading above the famed 8.3 mark. In fact, consider youself one of the lucky ones. If you're reading below 8.0 seriously consider betweer gas exchange and dripping kalkwasser to keep your PH higher in the acceptable range which should probably be more along the lines of 8.1-8.8. Maintaining a higher PH in closed aquaria is probably a good idea because of the greater amount of waste and acids that we encounter.


2.) Maintaining a KH of 8 is a good idea because it's close to what natural seawater is.

This one kind of goes along with the above suggestions. 8 dKH is perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't allow for a lot of wiggle room in out "dirty" aquariums. I've observed stress in various organisms when KH starts to drop much below 8. On the flipside there was a time when people commonly maintained a dKH as high as 18 in this hobby without any apparent stress from tank inhabitants.

Conclusion: While I wouldn't suggest striving for 18 dKH aiming for a little higher than natural seawater is a good idea because of the volatility of closed systems. I typically suggest people aim for 10-12 dKH. If you're using something that automatically replaces buffers in your system this is less crucial.


3.) 75-77 degrees is a good temperature for a reef tank or tropical fish only tank.

The majority of our corals come from corals and fish come from waters that range in temperature anywhere from 76-90 degrees with average temps in the low 80's. There are certainly creatures that are an exception such as those from Japan, Australia, and deeper waters which are more usesd to temperatures a little lower.

Conclusion: The old magic 76 degree mark has little merit and I'm not sure how it ever came to be in the first place. Maintaining temperatures in the low 80's is probably most natural and will suit most fish/coral available in the industry. Thankfully this has become more accepted in recent years.


4.) It's very important to keep temperatures stable.

This one pops up a lot on the forums. As you may have gathered from the above commentary, the temperature on your average reef isn't really stable at all. Temperatures can shift greatly with a simple shift of the tides or currents. There are also shifts between day and night that are close to 5 degrees on average.

Conclusion: Stop worrying about your daily swing in temperature from your lights heating the water. There's no need to go buy expensive chillers or controllers to always maintain the same temperature. In addition to being pretty natural the temperature swing may be good for your aquarium inhabitants and make them less likely to succumb should you have a more major temperature swing. In closed aquaria I wouldn't suggest testing the limits of this, but if your swings are under 5 degrees from day to night I wouldn't worry much.


5.) Any detectable amount of nitrates is bad in a reef aquarium.

While elevated levels are certainly a concern (20 ppm+) and I do feel it's best to maintain very low levels I think the toxicity of nitrates is highly exaggerated in this hobby.

Conclusion: If you're having problems zeroing out you nitrate tests don't fret too much. However, keep an eye on your nitrates levels and make sure they don't build up to levels that can start causing problems.

6.) Zoanthids are prefer low to moderate levels and flow, and they like dirty water.

As a group Zoanthids are very diverse. They can be found on the reef in pristine water conditions with incredible bright light and heavy flow. They can also be found at greater depths with lower light levels and less flow. Areas with turbid virtually stagnant water; check. Areas with huge waves crashing into them frequently being exposed to air, check. Dirtier water that may even be from sewage rinoff; check. Tidal pools with hugely varying conditions; check.

Conclusion: What's good for the goose may not be good for the gander. That's of course with the asumption that the goose and gander are both zoanthids. What the heck is a gander anyhow? ;)


7.) SPS corals require huge amounts of light and flow.

Much like Zoanthids, SPS corals are a very diverse group. They are found at a wide range of depths in a wide range of conditions.

Conclusion: Just because you have an SPS coral does not mean it will appreciate being blasted with light and thousands of gallons of water per hour. Do a little research on your specific coral to get a better grasp of what conditions it might do best in. A good rule of thumb is that more delicate looking specimens come from areas with lower lighting and flow that would be experienced on the upper reef. More robust looking growth forms would probably appreciate being blasted with light and flow.


8.) The colors of corals are a result of the zooxanthellae which grows in their tissue.

While this is true to a degree, zooxanthellae is typically a shade of brown (think autumn colors). The bright colors often seen in photosynthetic organisms are the result of various proteins. Some of these colors are genetic, some are freak occurences that are related to light intensity levels.

Conclusion: A coral being brown isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least it has plenty of it's zooxanthellae symbiant. However, if you have ome crazy blue coral it is absolutely not because you have some freaky blue zooxanthellae growing in it.


Well, the site is about to go down for maintenance so I'll leave it at this for now. Please add to the list and discuss what I've posted thus far.

P.S. Sorry for any mistakes along the way in my typing and grammar. I blame the beers!

[Scissorhand]

Thanks for the list, Peter.

While some of the things you listed are true to a certain extent, I think you're reaching for a bit much, perhaps due to the beer as well. :)

I'm merely afraid that it might lead some people to believe that there are THAT much leeway in reef-keeping.

I do believe in keeping the temperature stable. Your comparison of the temperature of an aquarium to that of the ocean isn't really a sound argument. Once things start to go south, we are not afforded the luxury of having a gadzillion gallons of water volume and thus a temperature rise in the ocean will not equal to a possible disaster that could happen in your reef if you let the temperature creeps past a certain point.

Number 7 is also a bit deceiving. Nevermind whether or not SPS like the flow or not, you didn't really mention that the inadequacy of flow could give way to dead spots and the build up of detritus and eventually a tank crash. How anyone can have low flow and no dead spot in an SPS tank is not really that easy.

I do agree with you on the Alk and the Zoas, the Nitrates, and I'll just take your words on number 8 because I'm hopping to bed and wouldn't mind a beer myself to help along the way.

[iwishtofish]

I like beer. It is loaded with information!

[saltydude]

Peter, I agree with all that you said. My tank is not under what some may consider "ideal" conditions", but it looks great. Everyone is a marine biologist on reef central, thinking they are some sort of "salty guru", so it is nice to read your post. Up until now I thought my tank was always teetering on a crash due to fluctuations but it looks great so I just held my breath. Good work and thank you for the confirmation.

[Frick-n-Frags]

assuming one of your test kits is bad, when you are really at the wrong sg. etc etc etc (ie the misconception being: thinking uncalibrated equipment is telling you the truth for certain)

[greenbean36191]

9.) Animal X is a filter feeder. It's great for your tank.

Filter feeding is just a way to say that an animal's food is suspended in the water column. Hobbyists hear the word "filter" and make the erroneous assumption that these animals will improve their water quality. Like all animals, filter feeders turn their food into waste, which gets peed or pooped out. They turn often harmless particulates into dissolved nutrients (ammonia being the chief one). With the exception of those with zooxanthellae to uptake it, you're always going to end up with more dissolved nitrogen coming out than went in (poorer water quality).

I do believe in keeping the temperature stable. Your comparison of the temperature of an aquarium to that of the ocean isn't really a sound argument. Once things start to go south, we are not afforded the luxury of having a gadzillion gallons of water volume and thus a temperature rise in the ocean will not equal to a possible disaster that could happen in your reef if you let the temperature creeps past a certain point.
Whether in the ocean or in captivity, stable temperatures don't afford you any wider a margin of error in the event of a problem. The physiological tolerance of the animals is still the same in captivity or the wild. All stability does is narrow that window of tolerance.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

I don't know anyone who shoots for 75-77 degrees.

[greenbean36191]

10.) My cleaner fish/shrimp cured or helped my fish get rid of ich.

There is no evidence that any cleaner species eats ich in any real number, either in the wild or captivity. It's never been found in the gut of cleaners in the wild and in lab tests cleaners have never been shown to make a significant difference on parasite loads. The ich parasite is under the skin of the host and without harming the host fish, the cleaner only has access to the parasite for about the 5 minutes that it takes for the parasite to burrow through. Because that 5 minutes occurs in the wee hours of the morning, cleaners will never naturally encounter the parasite during that time. In the lab, even when cleaners were induced to clean during the period when the parasite was burrowing in, they ate very few of them and made no significant difference in the parasite loads of the fish. The white spots associated with ich are only damaged skin due to the parasite underneath and guess what a large part of the diet of most cleaners is.... dead skin and fish mucus. Picking off the spots doesn't cure the fish.

11.) A UV sterilizer will kill everything good or bad in your tank and significantly reduce disease, food, or filtering capacity.

Even when UV sterilizers have near 100% kill rates of the organisms passing through, in recirculating systems they don't make a huge impact on the overall populations. They are limited by the fact that the breeding population in the system is always much larger than the number of individuals being killed. They can also only kill those organisms that are in the water column. There are numerous experiments confirming that the use of UV sterilizers on recirculating systems either has no significant impact on parasite populations or on infection rates.

[greenbean36191]

I just keep thinking of more and more. :)

12.) Mariculture and aquaculture are different methods of farming corals.

Aquaculture is underwater agriculture. Mariculture is simply marine aquaculture. In the context of the hobby, since all of our animals are marine, they are synonyms. Neither one implies anything about the culture method used or where it's done. To tell where the culturing is done you use in situ (in the original location) or ex situ (away from the origin) or sometimes in vitro (in captivity). To talk about the actual method used you talk about the intensity level. Extensive culture is when you have almost no control over the growth. Leaving frags on the reef to grow is an example of extensive culture. Semi- intensive is when you have some control, such as growing corals in a greenhouse but using NSW and sunlight. Intensive is when you have control over almost everything, like in your home frag tank.

13.) Trading frags helps save the reefs.

Reducing the demand for wild corals may help some, but it won't make a very big dent in the amount of corals being taken from the reef. As large as it has gotten, the live coral trade is still small compared to other uses for the reef such as construction. Regardless of the demand from the hobby, there will always be more demand for corals than supply and the collectors will always need jobs. To truly reduce the amount of corals being taken, economic alternatives to harvesting from the reef have to be offered and simply cutting our demand doesn't do that. Eco-tourism and responsible aquaculture are two possibilities.

[greenbean36191]

And again...

14.) Inverts are short lived, so expect to replace your cleaning crew regularly.

It's hard to generalize about the lifespan of inverts since they make up the vast majority of animals on the planet. Some, like octopi and most sea slugs only make it a year or two. Many popular members of cleanup crews can live decades to centuries though. Some of the animals we keep are even theoretically immortal, meaning they don't grow old. They only die when something kills them.

[Sk8r]

I generally agree: I advocate certain ranges for newbies because they are further from disaster than other readings, and fairly easy to achieve in relation to each other...if we can get the newbies to stay alive for long enough, and make few enough swings into disastrous territory, I hope they'll be with us a while...but when I say 1.025 is a 'good' salinity it's because a .001 either side of that isn't a bad swing and most things a newbie is likely to buy are going to be ok with it after acclimation.

But thank you, Peter: very much worth observing than some rules are "sorta guidelines" and that we need to remember that.

I've found corals are tougher in some regards than we commonly believe [I had a bit of bubble coral survive cycle and then perish when a too zealous cleanup knocked it off its precarious perch.]

And the interrelation of brilliant light PLUS temperature plus other factors seems complex: 85 degrees can bleach, but how old are your lights, etc?

Your corals survive bad conditions and then rtn when things 'improve'.

Not to mention the fish that lives in near muck of a dying tank and then fails when rescued, or the coral you pull out of where it fell and then see it's in better condition than its 'well-placed' brethren.

Or my bundle of torch/frog/hammer that happily accommodates my tailspot blenny, who likes, for some reason, to camp in the torch...while my highfin gobies seem to like to sit on the candycane and flirt with disaster in the clam.

Watch and wonder.

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10580000#post10580000 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sk8r


I've found corals are tougher in some regards than we commonly believe



Amen, I have only been at this for about 8 months but have learned that our little biospheres are a lot tougher than we give them credit for.
The ocean and Mother Nature for that matter is violent and unforgiving.
I also have learned to take a laze fare attitude with my tank(Other than some basic maintenance). It does not need me constantly lording over it like some mad scientist.

[awestruck]

Peter, I haven't piped up yet but just wanted you to know I think your contributions are exellent. Thank you!

[awestruck]

Peter, I haven't piped up yet but just wanted you to know I think your contributions are excellent. Thank you!

[awestruck]

Sorry, accidentally hit submit 2 times.

[Kaos]

I agree Peter. There are just too many variables in this hobby to have absolute rules. I think most of the "rules" we have should be considered more as guidlines. I've been at this hobby for 5 yrs. and on this board for almost that long. In that time allot of the absolute truths have now fallen to the wayside.

Corals and fish are tougher then most people think. Just watch one of the Discovery Channel shows on reefs and the ocean. It's brutal out there. I've had zoo's that took 4 days to get to my house only to have them open w/in a few hours of being in my tank. In my early days, I've had fish survive, and seem to thrive, some horrible tank conditions while I was trying to learn this hobby.

I'm not saying ignore the rules, just don't spazz out because your tank is not in some set spec's. Watch your inhabitants and they will let you know how things are.

[virginiadiver69]

Kaos, your signature kind of adds to this discussion. Also, you being in the coast guard (Thank You) should know better than many how cruel the ocean can be.

[luv951]

Greenbean - I love Carmella - my favorie PM in a long time.....and Jessica Walcott too!

OK, back to the fish we keep in tanks : 0

[Peter Eichler]

15.) Higher Kelvin bulbs such as those in the 14k-20k range will cause corals to "color up".

All the scientific research done in this area suggests that Kelvin has no effect on the bright coloration of corals. When it comes to lighting, intesity is the deciding factor on what color you corals are/will be. If you observe your corals getting more colorful after switching to a higher Kelvin bulb it's a result of the change in intesity and the perception of color that comes along with the higher Kelvin and greater blue spectrum.

Conclusion: This one is pretty harmless, but it's one of those beliefs that is perpetuated over and over again on this forum. There are other factors that will help determine coral coloration but all research suggests that the Kelvin of the light source is not one of them.

[Peter Eichler]

Thanks for the contributions and comments thus far. Keep them comin'!

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10579251#post10579251 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler


6.) Zoanthids are prefer low to moderate levels and flow, and they like dirty water.



Damn beer... :lol:

6.) Zoanthids prefer low to moderate levels of light and flow, and they like dirty water.

[edwing206]

:lol:

[Peter Eichler]

16.) The phytoplankton I put in my tank feeds my corals.

Very few corals are know to consume phytoplankton and some research suggests that most corals are unable to digest phytoplanton even if they can ingest it.

Conclusion: Phytoplanton has direct benefits to filter feeding organisms as well as pods. The addition of phytoplanton may indirectly benefit your corals but if you goal is to feed your corals directly it's best to look elsewhere.

[TriniStylez]

I agree with mostly all of it. I have never worried about temperature swing unless the tank reaches about 88 and even then I have never lost anything. I also dont have any desire to keep nitrates at 0 and my corals look great and are growing much faster than when I did try to keep nitrates at 0...

I think your right on about people worrying too much and not just enjoying their tanks. I have a friend who is like that and the other day he was over at my place and noticed the temperature was a bit high...man he was all over me to turn off the lights, do a water change with cool water, ect, ect. I laughed and told him to look at the corals and tell me if they looked stressed. They did not. But he still had this thing in his head that it needed to be lowered! So I told him to just relaxed and we got to talking about maintenance. Turns out he cant even remember the last time he sat infront of his tank for a long period of time without adjusting or tinkering with something...Thats sad...

[awestruck]

Beer was a staple in my diet throughout my college years. Maybe I should try some again! :D

[Kaos]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10581054#post10581054 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Kaos, your signature kind of adds to this discussion. Also, you being in the coast guard (Thank You) should know better than many how cruel the ocean can be.

I need to somehow change how I worded my occupation. I'm not in the USCG (even though it appears that way). I'm a contractor for the USCG that overhauls their C-130H's. I do work on the largest CG base in the U.S. Needless to say I am a very big fan of the CG and the work they do. I do know the cruelness of the ocean first hand though. Living really close the the Outer Banks I have spent and do spend allot of time there.

Sorry to interrupt, I just didn't want to take thanks that belonged to someone else.

[rynon]

Here's my 2 cents on all of this. DON'T WORRY SO MUCH ABOUT EVERYTHING. While being careful is a good idea, such as QT, you do not need to go nuts with all this stuff. I have LPS, SPS, softies, shrooms, zoas, etc. All in the same tank. I believe flow is important but alk swings.........big deal. My alk ranges from 8 Dkh to 12.5 and I've never had it cause any problems with anything. Also your tank being "sterile" for SPS is another myth IMO. My tank is not sterile by any means, I have algae, small amount of nitrates......0.2, obviously phosphates if I have algae. My acros look great, in fact they LIGHTEN color in my tank, so apparently the all mighty super important parameters are not as important as people think. I bought a purple aquacultured coral and in a matter of weeks it turned sky blue in my tank....due to lower nutrients, higher lighting, I don't know? All I know is that there are a LOT of people who do not go nutzo on all this stuff and have GREAT tanks. Nature.....whatever you believe, finds a way to make it work in TIME. I am not saying buffers, water changes, skimmers are not important, just that "swings" in numbers have not hurt a THING in my tank. I may come up with more later :)

[aninjaatemyshoe]

"Reducing the demand for wild corals may help some, but it won't make a very big dent in the amount of corals being taken from the reef. As large as it has gotten, the live coral trade is still small compared to other uses for the reef such as construction. Regardless of the demand from the hobby, there will always be more demand for corals than supply and the collectors will always need jobs. To truly reduce the amount of corals being taken, economic alternatives to harvesting from the reef have to be offered and simply cutting our demand doesn't do that. Eco-tourism and responsible aquaculture are two possibilities."

Agreed with this one. I've never been convinced that our hobby is a real threat to the reefs. It makes some impact, but when you consider what climate change and polution are doing, it is like a scraped knee on a cancer patient. I'm certainly not advocating unethical collection, and I think aquaculture is best, but there needs to be some perspective here. Our focus should be on projects to decrease oceanic pollution and promote sustainable methods of fishing/collection from the sea.

As far as the temperature thing goes, there is plenty of scientific evidence and reason to support keeping temperature at/around 78 degrees. The counter-argument that "their natural habitat experiences wild temperature shifts from low 70s to low 90s" is fallacious because we are not talking about keeping them in their natural habitat. There are differences, and keeping things optimal helps make up for other stresses we impose on our livestock. Granted I'm sure I can sit and read a hundred and one stories about how someone had a tank that survived a week of temps in the 90s, but how does this make it a good idea? I've gotten away with plenty that I should never have. Not once have I quarentined anything, not once have I had a disease in my tank. So? I should still do it. Just take measured risks.

[Sk8r]

I agree: I think at a certain point you arrange your tank as best you can, put in some corals and trade off the ones that, after a certain time, do not thrive; concentrate on the ones that do, and don't dose without testing---I think a certain amount of benign neglect lets a tank settle, in the sense that I don't want to be one of the guys that are so micro-managing their tanks that it's like riding a constantly jolting vehicle: lots of little bumps and corrections. I've had periods of good growth meet me after I've returned from vacation and my skilled tanksitter [who can't get there daily] has just been struggling to keep the skimmer going during one of its cranky phases: so much for ego, eh?

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582441#post10582441 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
"Reducing the demand for wild corals may help some, but it won't make a very big dent in the amount of corals being taken from the reef. As large as it has gotten, the live coral trade is still small compared to other uses for the reef such as construction. Regardless of the demand from the hobby, there will always be more demand for corals than supply and the collectors will always need jobs. To truly reduce the amount of corals being taken, economic alternatives to harvesting from the reef have to be offered and simply cutting our demand doesn't do that. Eco-tourism and responsible aquaculture are two possibilities."

Agreed with this one. I've never been convinced that our hobby is a real threat to the reefs. It makes some impact, but when you consider what climate change and polution are doing, it is like a scraped knee on a cancer patient. I'm certainly not advocating unethical collection, and I think aquaculture is best, but there needs to be some perspective here. Our focus should be on projects to decrease oceanic pollution and promote sustainable methods of fishing/collection from the sea.

As far as the temperature thing goes, there is plenty of scientific evidence and reason to support keeping temperature at/around 78 degrees. The counter-argument that "their natural habitat experiences wild temperature shifts from low 70s to low 90s" is fallacious because we are not talking about keeping them in their natural habitat. There are differences, and keeping things optimal helps make up for other stresses we impose on our livestock. Granted I'm sure I can sit and read a hundred and one stories about how someone had a tank that survived a week of temps in the 90s, but how does this make it a good idea? I've gotten away with plenty that I should never have. Not once have I quarentined anything, not once have I had a disease in my tank. So? I should still do it. Just take measured risks.

Our hobby is a very very real threat to reefs. The Philippines are a perfect example of this. Our hobby is certainly not the only factor that contributed to the destruction of the reefs there, but it's was a significant factor. Thing is, collection of corals isn't nearly as destructive to reefs as improper fish collection is.

My statement about temp is not fallacious, it's fact. At no point did I suggest people try to duplicate these extreme temperature swings, I was simply pointing out that the old belief that temperatures must remain stable is bunk.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

It isn't that we "must" maintain stable tank temps, it's that we "should." Like I said, people have gotten away with it, including me. But stable tank temp is something to strive for. As far as what temp to maintain, there are good reasons to stay below 80s, but I've never read anything that says we should be keeping the temp in the mid 80s. Temps above the low 80s encourages spawing in inverts (which can foul tank water), increases bacterial metabolism (which depletes oxygen), is less than optimal for calcification, and can be the activator for certain diseases. I said that your argument is fallacious, not because it contained incorrect information (which is not what fallacious means), but because it was based on an premise that simply doesn't fit our situation. We do not run oceans in our living rooms. The differences do matter and OPTIMUM conditions (not anything within a range of conditions that something can survive) is what we need to strive for to make up for the numerous factors in the ocean for which we cannot recreate.

As far as the destruction of the reef goes, I won't argue against ethical collection and keeping methods. Irresponsible collection methods have made an impact, but I think our ever improving efforts to reduce this are helping to minimize this. The sad fact is that our hobby is a miniscule wound to the reefs in comparison to the real problems of climate change and pollution.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582434#post10582434 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rynon
alk swings.........big deal. My alk ranges from 8 Dkh to 12.5 and I've never had it cause any problems with anything.

But as you stated you don't keep sps. Alk. swings to sps is deadly. So obviously some corals do prefer/require different conditions.

[rynon]

I DO keep SPS and have never had a problem. I have NEVER lost a acropora due to anything. Every acro in my tank has lived, grown, colored up nicely and my alk swings all over the place. I can post some pictures if you'd like?

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

No need to get all on the throne. I do doubt the validity of your statement though, but no big deal.
I just don't see how you've had Alk. swings 'all over the place' and never lost an acro. That flies in the face of countless numbers of sps keepers experiences including my paersonal own.

How do you measure your alk., what does it swing from and to, and how often do you test it. Do you use a Ca. Reactor or two part dosing?

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582753#post10582753 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
It isn't that we "must" maintain stable tank temps, it's that we "should." Like I said, people have gotten away with it, including me. But stable tank temp is something to strive for. As far as what temp to maintain, there are good reasons to stay below 80s, but I've never read anything that says we should be keeping the temp in the mid 80s. Temps above the low 80s encourages spawing in inverts (which can foul tank water), increases bacterial metabolism (which depletes oxygen), is less than optimal for calcification, and can be the activator for certain diseases. I said that your argument is fallacious, not because it contained incorrect information (which is not what fallacious means), but because it was based on an premise that simply doesn't fit our situation. We do not run oceans in our living rooms. The differences do matter and OPTIMUM conditions (not anything within a range of conditions that something can survive) is what we need to strive for to make up for the numerous factors in the ocean for which we cannot recreate.

As far as the destruction of the reef goes, I won't argue against ethical collection and keeping methods. Irresponsible collection methods have made an impact, but I think our ever improving efforts to reduce this are helping to minimize this. The sad fact is that our hobby is a miniscule wound to the reefs in comparison to the real problems of climate change and pollution.

Once again, I'm not suggesting we try to mimic the everchanging conditions on a reef, nor am I suggesting people try to maintain temps on the extremes of the scale or even mid 80's. You're creating a red herring of my argument and then calling it fallacious. You're the one commiting the fallacy. Most indications point to low 80's being optimal since that's average for the areas where most corals are collected. Do you have an references to higher temps (above 80) being an activator for certain diseases or inhibits calcification.

Here's an article for you to read and think on.

http://www.reefland.com/rho/1105/reefc7.php

[rynon]

Here are some pictures.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/RyanSc_photos/top%20down%20shots/IMG_1080.jpg
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/RyanSc_photos/top%20down%20shots/IMG_1078.jpg
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/RyanSc_photos/IMG_1096.jpg
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s7/RyanSc_photos/IMG_1043.jpg

That's just a few. The last coral got LIGHTER in my tank, it was purple, now blue. Vacuuming the sump and stuff like that is crazy IMO. I am not trying to fight with anyone, all of this is just my opinion. OH and this is a point and shoot cam.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582856#post10582856 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by E-A-G-L-E-S
No need to get all on the throne. I do doubt the validity of your statement though, but no big deal.
I just don't see how you've had Alk. swings 'all over the place' and never lost an acro. That flies in the face of countless numbers of sps keepers experiences including my paersonal own.

How do you measure your alk., what does it swing from and to, and how often do you test it. Do you use a Ca. Reactor or two part dosing?

I'd like to point out that I do feel stable PH and alkalinty is far more important than temperature and salinity. Regular and drastic swings in either is cause for concern and can do harm IMO/E.

[rynon]

I do try to prevent alk swings but until I figure out my tanks demands I will continue to have them. I just got a kalk reactor and my alk went from 8.6 to 9.6 in one day so perhaps that will help?

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582906#post10582906 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rynon
I do try to prevent alk swings but until I figure out my tanks demands I will continue to have them. I just got a kalk reactor and my alk went from 8.6 to 9.6 in one day so perhaps that will help?

It should help you maintain your PH and alkalinty. Just keep an eye on readings and get it dialed in. You may have to supplement calcium and buffers in addition to the kalkwasser. In my tank and many others there is not enough daily evaporation to allow enough kalkwasser to be added.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

How long has it been running? The rock still looks fresh.
Just because it's new doesn't mean it 'has' to swing. If you tested and dosed daily you would keep it pretty stable.

[rynon]

Some of the rock is pretty new, some is old. I do have a problem with a lack of coralline....I cannot seem to keep up. I tested my water yesterday which showed my calcium at 385 and my alk at 8.6, today the calcium was the same.........not normal in my tank, the alk (like I said) went from 8.6 to 9.6. I DO know the kalk reactor is not going to keep me from adding supplement BUT hopefully will help some. Speaking of which I need to test my Mg. Thanks all for your thoughts...........I always appreciate new ideas!

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582967#post10582967 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rynon
Speaking of which I need to test my Mg.

This is most likely the reason you are having swings AND are not growing coralline. Your Mag. is probabaly low.

[rynon]

Just tested at 1260. I added 75ml of Kents Tech M so it should be nearish 1300, I'll add some more tomorrow. I don't think this would cause a low alk problem though? My tank EATS calcium and alk like crazy....seeing a raise in alk without buffer makes me REALLY happy, and a steady calcium level is great too. I may add some calcium as well......which also contains magnesium so that should put me where I should be. Thanks again.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

No, low mag. will make it difficult to have stable Ca./Alk. params.
1300ppm is pretty good. I stay around 1320ppm. Anything in the 1300's is good - imo.

[rynon]

BTW I have 10K XM lights with no actinics......I believe actinic lighting also aids in coralline?

[Scalestfw]

My least favorite misconception is that corals and reef aquaria are more "difficult" than fish-only tanks. I find the opposite to be true. The easiest coral is far easier than the easiest fish, at least with the modern equipment that is available.

More expensive? Perhaps. But not more difficult.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Well, on the other hand fish can handle nitrates and overall less ideal conditions better than at least most sps.
But that does work both ways. There are fish, like the batfish and others, that do take more care than many types of corals require.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Rynon....I think the spectrum of light from actinic lamps of 420nm or 460nm do aide in coralline growth but I'm definitely not sure.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

I'll reference the issue about the disease tonight when I get home. Don't have access to it right now.

Peter, the article you referenced (and the follow-up article) is quite nice in outlining how the natural reef environment is not as "stable" as we tend to think. The second article also impresses that it is important for corals in their natural environment to have environmental variation, but more so with seasonal variation as upposed to day-to-day variation. However, it doesn't even go into the physiological or even practicle issues that separate the natural environment from the aquarium environment. It had very little in terms of reef aquarium husbandry, just the assumption that variations in temp, salinity, so forth must directly translate to the best husbandry practices for us. The article talks about evolution and adaption over long periods of change, but again this is not something we are experiencing in our little "pieces of the ocean." It does meantion that environmental variations are important for sexual reproduction, but how many of us are striving for that? If anything, sexual reproduction is what we want to prevent because we are not prepared to handle the explosion of free floating nutrients. And even if we wanted this outcome, the environmental cues would require even more equipment and control of conditions than we tend to use in our aquariums. I don't think it prepares a very convincing case in regards to reef keeping.

[ManotheSea]

Here is one that I beleive to be a myth. Please correct me if you think im wrong.

MYTH: Using bagged "live"sand and bottled "live" bacteria cultures will shorten new tank cycles. When I first got into salt water many years ago, i couldnt understand how these could possibly be alive after months on a store shelf. It never made any sense to me but no one was complaining. Most RC member giving advice even suggested its use. Now I see things much more clearly. Store bagged sand is dead sand.

I now use fresh from the ocean live sand. A new tank will not even have a cycle using fresh sand. Fresh sand does not smell horribly like dead sand in a bag does after some tank time. Fresh sand will not have an algae bloom stage. The cycle and the algae bloom comes from dumping a 15 lb bag of dead crap into your tank. For those who do not have fresh sand access, I highly recommend finding some one who can overnight ship fresh live sand to you. Another great alternative is to use dry sand and seed it with cups of live sand taken from your fiends tanks. The use of real fresh live sand will greatly reduce the cycle and the algae bloom if not eliminate them. This holds true whether the fresh sand is from the ocean, an overnight delivery from the ocean direct or from your friends donations. I have seen acros put into new tanks after the second day with no ill affects using fresh sand and cured live rock.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10583184#post10583184 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
I'll reference the issue about the disease tonight when I get home. Don't have access to it right now.

Peter, the article you referenced (and the follow-up article) is quite nice in outlining how the natural reef environment is not as "stable" as we tend to think. The second article also impresses that it is important for corals in their natural environment to have environmental variation, but more so with seasonal variation as upposed to day-to-day variation. However, it doesn't even go into the physiological or even practicle issues that separate the natural environment from the aquarium environment. It had very little in terms of reef aquarium husbandry, just the assumption that variations in temp, salinity, so forth must directly translate to the best husbandry practices for us. The article talks about evolution and adaption over long periods of change, but again this is not something we are experiencing in our little "pieces of the ocean." It does meantion that environmental variations are important for sexual reproduction, but how many of us are striving for that? If anything, sexual reproduction is what we want to prevent because we are not prepared to handle the explosion of free floating nutrients. And even if we wanted this outcome, the environmental cues would require even more equipment and control of conditions than we tend to use in our aquariums. I don't think it prepares a very convincing case in regards to reef keeping.

Ok, but can you come up with a strong argument to support keeping aquariums lower in temperature with extremely consisten temperature conditions? The only reason those things are stressed now is because many years ago someone started spouting off about how stable reef conditions are so we should keep our aquariums stable. I agree that we need to adjust some of our procedures to better suit home aquaria. However, the old suggestions of keeping temps below 80 and always keeping them stable holds little weight, even when you consider the differences between the reef and out aquariums. Lastly, we should be striving for spawning events. If we can find a way to replicate them it would be a great advance in this hobby. Until then spawning events are not so common in aquariums that maintain higher water temps to warrant not trying better to replicate natural conditions.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

Ok, my references all come from the Reef Aquarium V. 3 (Delbeek and Sprung), which is a great in-depth source. For the purposes of trying to keep this somewhat brief, I have skipped some things and tried to hit the major points.

I didn't notice at first, but it actually references the Shimek article:

(pg 134) - "Following the logic that Mother Nature knows best Shimek (1997, 2000) proposes that a temperature in that range [82-87 degrees Fahrenheit] is best for captive reefs. Our experience in a closed aquarium has demonstrated that the temperature in a closed aquarium should not be maintained near the natural thermal tolerances of corals; on the contrary, it should be maintained significantly lower. The reason for this is due to more than one effect... Our recommendation to maintain reef aquariums at cooler temperatures assumes that the goal is to maintain a diverse population of corals, other reef life and fish in a stable environment that promotes their long-term health with minimal risk of disease or accidental suffocation...High temperature in combination with longer day lengths and salinity changes trigger spawning in the natural environment and in aquariums... coral, anemone, tridacnid clam, [etc] which commonly occurs in the warmest months can be a major problem for closed system aquariums. The release of gametes into the water rapidly consumes oxygen, poisons the tank, clogs the filters, or causes the protein skimmer foam to collapse... [this] is not something that can can be safely managed in a typical closed system aquarium... [however] maintaining a constant, lower temperature in aquariums cannot be considered the definitive means of preventing mass spawning."

(pg 135)
"The principle difference regarding temperature between the natural environment and the aquarium has to do with oxygen availability... the increase in water temperature causes a much more significant issue, the increase in metabolism, and consequently respiration, of the life in the aquarium. The increase in respiration also rises sharply as the thermal tolerance of an animal is approached. This increase in metabolism associated with increase in temperature happens in the natural environment as well, but there it is not as critical as in aquariums because of the ratio of water volume to mass of life."

(pg 136)
"Research on coral bleaching has repeatedly shown that when temperatures exceed the natural temperature extremes by as little as 1 or 2 degrees Celsius, bleaching and subsequent death in corals can occur... Fernando Nosratpour, assistant Aquarium curator at the Birch Aquarium at Scripps in San Diego, reports that the temperature in his Indo-Pacific reef tank ranges from 77 to 83 degrees but is only at 83 for one week in the summer. However, if the temperature rises to 84/85 degrees for ten days or more then signs of bleaching began to appear in the corals."

(pg 137)
"In our experience, the incidence of rapid tissue necrosis (RTN) and other bacterial diseases that affect corals also increases with increasing temperature. Recent scientific research on coral disease supports our aquarium observations... Vibrio coralliilyticus, becomes virulent at just 3 degrees above normal water temperatures and causes complete tissue loss in Pocillopora damicornis. Ben-Haim and Rosenberg (2002) showed that when corals were inoculated with the bacterium at 68 and 77 degrees, no disease appeared after 20 days, but 100% of the tested fragments showed disease and died at 80.6 and 84.2 degrees after just 16 days... [another case] found that when the temperature reached 82.6 degrees an outbreak of Dark Spots Disease occurred. [It was] concluded that conditions within the aquarium might have contributed to this outbreak since the daily temperature fluctuated more than 4.5 degrees and may have created a more stressful situation."

(pg 139) "The bottom line is that an aquarium environment is not the same as the ocean environment. Light fields, light intensity, water chemistry, volume, and water motion in aquariums are all significantly different from those in the ocean."

The book goes on in other sections to talk about other reasons why mid-high 70s is the ideal, but I think I've cited enough. Point is that they provide far more compelling evidence to support their claims than the Shimek article as they are actually talking about experiences within reef aquariums and not just looking at what occurs in the ocean.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10584546#post10584546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
Ok, my references all come from the Reef Aquarium V. 3 (Delbeek and Sprung), which is a great in-depth source. For the purposes of trying to keep this somewhat brief, I have skipped some things and tried to hit the major points.

I didn't notice at first, but it actually references the Shimek article:

(pg 134) - "Following the logic that Mother Nature knows best Shimek (1997, 2000) proposes that a temperature in that range [82-87 degrees Fahrenheit] is best for captive reefs. Our experience in a closed aquarium has demonstrated that the temperature in a closed aquarium should not be maintained near the natural thermal tolerances of corals; on the contrary, it should be maintained significantly lower. The reason for this is due to more than one effect... Our recommendation to maintain reef aquariums at cooler temperatures assumes that the goal is to maintain a diverse population of corals, other reef life and fish in a stable environment that promotes their long-term health with minimal risk of disease or accidental suffocation...High temperature in combination with longer day lengths and salinity changes trigger spawning in the natural environment and in aquariums... coral, anemone, tridacnid clam, [etc] which commonly occurs in the warmest months can be a major problem for closed system aquariums. The release of gametes into the water rapidly consumes oxygen, poisons the tank, clogs the filters, or causes the protein skimmer foam to collapse... [this] is not something that can can be safely managed in a typical closed system aquarium... [however] maintaining a constant, lower temperature in aquariums cannot be considered the definitive means of preventing mass spawning."

(pg 135)
"The principle difference regarding temperature between the natural environment and the aquarium has to do with oxygen availability... the increase in water temperature causes a much more significant issue, the increase in metabolism, and consequently respiration, of the life in the aquarium. The increase in respiration also rises sharply as the thermal tolerance of an animal is approached. This increase in metabolism associated with increase in temperature happens in the natural environment as well, but there it is not as critical as in aquariums because of the ratio of water volume to mass of life."

(pg 136)
"Research on coral bleaching has repeatedly shown that when temperatures exceed the natural temperature extremes by as little as 1 or 2 degrees Celsius, bleaching and subsequent death in corals can occur... Fernando Nosratpour, assistant Aquarium curator at the Birch Aquarium at Scripps in San Diego, reports that the temperature in his Indo-Pacific reef tank ranges from 77 to 83 degrees but is only at 83 for one week in the summer. However, if the temperature rises to 84/85 degrees for ten days or more then signs of bleaching began to appear in the corals."

(pg 137)
"In our experience, the incidence of rapid tissue necrosis (RTN) and other bacterial diseases that affect corals also increases with increasing temperature. Recent scientific research on coral disease supports our aquarium observations... Vibrio coralliilyticus, becomes virulent at just 3 degrees above normal water temperatures and causes complete tissue loss in Pocillopora damicornis. Ben-Haim and Rosenberg (2002) showed that when corals were inoculated with the bacterium at 68 and 77 degrees, no disease appeared after 20 days, but 100% of the tested fragments showed disease and died at 80.6 and 84.2 degrees after just 16 days... [another case] found that when the temperature reached 82.6 degrees an outbreak of Dark Spots Disease occurred. [It was] concluded that conditions within the aquarium might have contributed to this outbreak since the daily temperature fluctuated more than 4.5 degrees and may have created a more stressful situation."

(pg 139) "The bottom line is that an aquarium environment is not the same as the ocean environment. Light fields, light intensity, water chemistry, volume, and water motion in aquariums are all significantly different from those in the ocean."

The book goes on in other sections to talk about other reasons why mid-high 70s is the ideal, but I think I've cited enough. Point is that they provide far more compelling evidence to support their claims than the Shimek article as they are actually talking about experiences within reef aquariums and not just looking at what occurs in the ocean.

Sprung is a good aquarist and wrote some good books but he's been wrong many times before and he'll be wrong again. He's a hobbyist just like many of us and he has been known to follow common beliefs and trends just like many of us. When I want a supplement I don't need I'll trust Sprung. Other than that I'll put a little more faith in natural conditions and personal observations. For years I was made deathly affraid of temps breaking the 80 degree mark because of Sprung, and it was complete and total nonsense.

[dougie]

[QUOTE]<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10583296#post10583296 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ManotheSea
I now use fresh from the ocean live sand.

do you collect this sand yourself from a beach? or
do you buy the live sand?

Ive been curious about using sand from my local beaches for ages, also snails from the tide pools as a clean up crew.

Never had the guts to try in fear something will go bad.

Whats your thoughts?

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10581514#post10581514 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
15.) Higher Kelvin bulbs such as those in the 14k-20k range will cause corals to "color up".

All the scientific research done in this area suggests that Kelvin has no effect on the bright coloration of corals. When it comes to lighting, intesity is the deciding factor on what color you corals are/will be. If you observe your corals getting more colorful after switching to a higher Kelvin bulb it's a result of the change in intesity and the perception of color that comes along with the higher Kelvin and greater blue spectrum.

Conclusion: This one is pretty harmless, but it's one of those beliefs that is perpetuated over and over again on this forum. There are other factors that will help determine coral coloration but all research suggests that the Kelvin of the light source is not one of them.

Scientific research or not, and we all know sometimes even that isn't correct, this not true. At least to the extent that if you took a frag of the same coral and placed it in equal systems with the only difference being one was lit by a 20K Radium and one a 10K Ushio often times the coloration will be very different (out of the tank). "Better" is in the eye of the beholder but they can definately be very different.

Nice thread....good info mostly:)

Chris

[greenbean36191]

The principle difference regarding temperature between the natural environment and the aquarium has to do with oxygen availability... the increase in water temperature causes a much more significant issue, the increase in metabolism, and consequently respiration, of the life in the aquarium. The increase in respiration also rises sharply as the thermal tolerance of an animal is approached. This increase in metabolism associated with increase in temperature happens in the natural environment as well, but there it is not as critical as in aquariums because of the ratio of water volume to mass of life.
The magnitude of this problem is very exaggerated. Assuming no thermal stress, (which there shouldn't be over this normal range) going from 78-86 increases metabolism by about 20% and reduces oxygen saturation by about 7%. That equates to about a .5 mg/L loss of oxygen and the actual DO levels will still be around 2 and a half times the safe limit. You're way overstocked or have major aeration issues if temperature is having a noticeable affect on your inhabitants. Regardless of what temperature you run, it's just a bandaid.

The spike you get when you near the tolerance shouldn't be an issue because that spike doesn't occur in most species until 88-92, assuming their natural tolerance hasn't been reduced by low or stable temperatures.

Research on coral bleaching has repeatedly shown that when temperatures exceed the natural temperature extremes by as little as 1 or 2 degrees Celsius, bleaching and subsequent death in corals can occur... Fernando Nosratpour, assistant Aquarium curator at the Birch Aquarium at Scripps in San Diego, reports that the temperature in his Indo-Pacific reef tank ranges from 77 to 83 degrees but is only at 83 for one week in the summer. However, if the temperature rises to 84/85 degrees for ten days or more then signs of bleaching began to appear in the corals.
The first part of this statement is indisputable. The second part, IMO only reinforces what Peter has been saying since the first post. You have to ask yourself why these corals are bleaching at temperatures they would regularly see on the reefs in nature and have been shown to be around the range of their growth optima in the lab? If it's something inherent about a captive system then why do so many people in the hobby regularly see those temperatures without ill effect? My tank runs at 86 almost every day during the summer, and sometimes up to 88 or even 90 for a few days, yet bleaching isn't a problem. Dr. Brian Helmuth's work has confirmed that if you keep corals at lower or more stable temps they show extreme stress, while other corals from more natural regimes keep metabolizing normally, even under unnaturally high temps.

[greenbean36191]

Agreed with this one. I've never been convinced that our hobby is a real threat to the reefs. It makes some impact, but when you consider what climate change and polution are doing, it is like a scraped knee on a cancer patient. I'm certainly not advocating unethical collection, and I think aquaculture is best, but there needs to be some perspective here. Our focus should be on projects to decrease oceanic pollution and promote sustainable methods of fishing/collection from the sea.
This actually wasn't my point at all. Collection for the hobby is a real threat to the reefs, regardless of how it compares to other factors. My point is that many people in the hobby are under the mistaken impression that stopping the collection of wild fish and corals for the hobby will significantly reduce the amount of animals taken from the reef. It's just not true. The collectors still need to make money and most don't have many other economic alternatives besides harvesting from the reef. If they can no longer sell to us they will just sell to the next highest bidder. There is no shortage of demand for corals and fish from other industries.

Trading frags does little to reduce the amount of animals being taken from the reef and stymies the growth of in situ aquaculture that really could provide economic alternatives for the collectors.

[Aquarist007]

I apologize for not knowing this thread was alreadystarted on this topic --I've tried to research it with no luck.

I for one, am so greatful to the dedicated moderators on this form that with their leadership and the input of many others hobbyists like mysef, for clearing up or explain alot of misconceptions that I have learned along the way.

I'll state a few :

Biggest misconception was that marine fish don't adapt or have a hard time adapting to change.
The "corrected" statement is that they can adapt to change providing it is within the low and high range of real reef conditions.

Another misconception was based around "Ich" I was totally in the dark about its life cycle and the subsequent treatment to use.
Once I understood the life cycle it made more sense to use a quarantine tank and hyposalinate it.

Another misconception was based around the methods and reasons for treating cyano

And finally for now---the misconception that algae was encouraged by light and reducting light would irradicate it.
This is of course false--the number one factor for increasing the growth of algae is nutrients. finding and cutting down the sources of nutrients will go along way for curbing algae rather then reducing the light.

Way to go Peter----this will be an awesome and valuable thread as it takes off
Scott

[aninjaatemyshoe]

"Sprung is a good aquarist and wrote some good books but he's been wrong many times before and he'll be wrong again. He's a hobbyist just like many of us and he has been known to follow common beliefs and trends just like many of us. When I want a supplement I don't need I'll trust Sprung. Other than that I'll put a little more faith in natural conditions and personal observations. For years I was made deathly affraid of temps breaking the 80 degree mark because of Sprung, and it was complete and total nonsense."

I don't know what you're talking about regarding the unneeded supplements, I've read through his whole book and never once read something recommending adding supplements beyond the typical calcium, alkalinity, and magnesium. He talks about other trace elements, but doesn't say you "need" to add them.

I'm going to try to make my point clear regarding mid to high 70 degree temperature and stability: It is a GOOD thing. I'm not saying, nor does Sprung's book say, that it is prescriptive for maintaining a healthy reef aquarium. It is simple a great way to further ensure the health of our inhabitants. Why in hell would we be recommending that people don't care about the temperature swings or maintaining a tolerable temperature? Sure, people who have been in the hobby for some time and are quite good at all other elements may need not worry so much, but to the new guys this is bad advice. You talk about your experiences as if they apply to everyone. Tell me one story about someone who maintained the temperature as stated above and had corals suffer for it? I have heard plenty of stories that have pointed to thermal stress causing big problems in their tanks.


"The magnitude of this problem is very exaggerated. Assuming no thermal stress, (which there shouldn't be over this normal range) going from 78-86 increases metabolism by about 20% and reduces oxygen saturation by about 7%. That equates to about a .5 mg/L loss of oxygen and the actual DO levels will still be around 2 and a half times the safe limit. You're way overstocked or have major aeration issues if temperature is having a noticeable affect on your inhabitants. Regardless of what temperature you run, it's just a bandaid."

It is true that the oxygen depletion from higher temps will not be a problem for an aquarium in which there is rather good oxygenation to start with. Problem is that I don't think that is as common as you are assuming. During the night, without the aid of photosynthesis, the oxygen levels can already decrease. Then add on top of that the depleted oxygen from higher temps and you're reaching levels that can put too much stress on our livestock. Certainly, many things such as a reverse daylight refugium, a high turn-over rate on a good protein skimmer, and use of a sump will help alleviate these issues. But as I stated before, unfortunately plenty of aquarists are not providing sufficient oxygenation to make up for such depletion. Sure, we should encourage that they make up for that, but why not also encourage that they keep the temps in a range that will not worsen the problem?

"The spike you get when you near the tolerance shouldn't be an issue because that spike doesn't occur in most species until 88-92, assuming their natural tolerance hasn't been reduced by low or stable temperatures."

So what, are you suggesting that we try and impose hormesis on our livestock by varying the temp and putting them in higher temperature water? How should this practically be acheived? It should be done in a way similar to how it occurs in nature (according to the argument you guys are putting forth). Just simply allowing the temp in our tanks to sway back and forth is not replicating how it occurs in nature, sorry I don't buy it.


"The first part of this statement is indisputable. The second part, IMO only reinforces what Peter has been saying since the first post. You have to ask yourself why these corals are bleaching at temperatures they would regularly see on the reefs in nature and have been shown to be around the range of their growth optima in the lab? If it's something inherent about a captive system then why do so many people in the hobby regularly see those temperatures without ill effect? My tank runs at 86 almost every day during the summer, and sometimes up to 88 or even 90 for a few days, yet bleaching isn't a problem. Dr. Brian Helmuth's work has confirmed that if you keep corals at lower or more stable temps they show extreme stress, while other corals from more natural regimes keep metabolizing normally, even under unnaturally high temps."

Corals do show adaptability to the ranges in which you place them. Once they adapt to that situation, changing the conditions drastically has an obviously negative affect. You can keep them in higher temperature tanks so long as you willing to accept some of the other issues that come along with that. Among the ones listed above, the ones that stick out are the oxygen depletion and the increase in disease activity. Spawning is potentially another issue, but as stated above you don't absolutely avoid it by maintaining lower temperatures.

In the end, it really comes down to what you are going to recommend we should be doing in regards to temperature in our tanks. Telling people they should not care about temp swings is not helping anything. There is no denying that temp swings causes some stress, and in tanks where there already is a good amount of stress from other factors, this can build up to issues such as disease and coral bleaching. As far as what temperature to strive for, I've seen the evidence supporting mid-high 70s and have not seen anything convincing saying low-mid 80s. The idea that keeping a lower temp makes corals vulnerable to higher temps, while valid, is not an adequate reason. After all, the converse could be said about maintaining higher temps; that they make the corals vulnerable to lower temps. Then there is the point made about optimum growth rates, but this is something that applies to certain specific corals in controlled laboratory situations. This is not a real analog to our aquariums, which are not quite so controlled in other factors and contain corals of many different varieties from many different regions and potentially even different oceans.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10587395#post10587395 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
"Sprung is a good aquarist and wrote some good books but he's been wrong many times before and he'll be wrong again. He's a hobbyist just like many of us and he has been known to follow common beliefs and trends just like many of us. When I want a supplement I don't need I'll trust Sprung. Other than that I'll put a little more faith in natural conditions and personal observations. For years I was made deathly affraid of temps breaking the 80 degree mark because of Sprung, and it was complete and total nonsense."

I don't know what you're talking about regarding the unneeded supplements, I've read through his whole book and never once read something recommending adding supplements beyond the typical calcium, alkalinity, and magnesium. He talks about other trace elements, but doesn't say you "need" to add them.

I'm going to try to make my point clear regarding mid to high 70 degree temperature and stability: It is a GOOD thing. I'm not saying, nor does Sprung's book say, that it is prescriptive for maintaining a healthy reef aquarium. It is simple a great way to further ensure the health of our inhabitants. Why in hell would we be recommending that people don't care about the temperature swings or maintaining a tolerable temperature? Sure, people who have been in the hobby for some time and are quite good at all other elements may need not worry so much, but to the new guys this is bad advice. You talk about your experiences as if they apply to everyone. Tell me one story about someone who maintained the temperature as stated above and had corals suffer for it? I have heard plenty of stories that have pointed to thermal stress causing big problems in their tanks.


"The magnitude of this problem is very exaggerated. Assuming no thermal stress, (which there shouldn't be over this normal range) going from 78-86 increases metabolism by about 20% and reduces oxygen saturation by about 7%. That equates to about a .5 mg/L loss of oxygen and the actual DO levels will still be around 2 and a half times the safe limit. You're way overstocked or have major aeration issues if temperature is having a noticeable affect on your inhabitants. Regardless of what temperature you run, it's just a bandaid."

It is true that the oxygen depletion from higher temps will not be a problem for an aquarium in which there is rather good oxygenation to start with. Problem is that I don't think that is as common as you are assuming. During the night, without the aid of photosynthesis, the oxygen levels can already decrease. Then add on top of that the depleted oxygen from higher temps and you're reaching levels that can put too much stress on our livestock. Certainly, many things such as a reverse daylight refugium, a high turn-over rate on a good protein skimmer, and use of a sump will help alleviate these issues. But as I stated before, unfortunately plenty of aquarists are not providing sufficient oxygenation to make up for such depletion. Sure, we should encourage that they make up for that, but why not also encourage that they keep the temps in a range that will not worsen the problem?

"The spike you get when you near the tolerance shouldn't be an issue because that spike doesn't occur in most species until 88-92, assuming their natural tolerance hasn't been reduced by low or stable temperatures."

So what, are you suggesting that we try and impose hormesis on our livestock by varying the temp and putting them in higher temperature water? How should this practically be acheived? It should be done in a way similar to how it occurs in nature (according to the argument you guys are putting forth). Just simply allowing the temp in our tanks to sway back and forth is not replicating how it occurs in nature, sorry I don't buy it.


"The first part of this statement is indisputable. The second part, IMO only reinforces what Peter has been saying since the first post. You have to ask yourself why these corals are bleaching at temperatures they would regularly see on the reefs in nature and have been shown to be around the range of their growth optima in the lab? If it's something inherent about a captive system then why do so many people in the hobby regularly see those temperatures without ill effect? My tank runs at 86 almost every day during the summer, and sometimes up to 88 or even 90 for a few days, yet bleaching isn't a problem. Dr. Brian Helmuth's work has confirmed that if you keep corals at lower or more stable temps they show extreme stress, while other corals from more natural regimes keep metabolizing normally, even under unnaturally high temps."

Corals do show adaptability to the ranges in which you place them. Once they adapt to that situation, changing the conditions drastically has an obviously negative affect. You can keep them in higher temperature tanks so long as you willing to accept some of the other issues that come along with that. Among the ones listed above, the ones that stick out are the oxygen depletion and the increase in disease activity. Spawning is potentially another issue, but as stated above you don't absolutely avoid it by maintaining lower temperatures.

In the end, it really comes down to what you are going to recommend we should be doing in regards to temperature in our tanks. Telling people they should not care about temp swings is not helping anything. There is no denying that temp swings causes some stress, and in tanks where there already is a good amount of stress from other factors, this can build up to issues such as disease and coral bleaching. As far as what temperature to strive for, I've seen the evidence supporting mid-high 70s and have not seen anything convincing saying low-mid 80s. The idea that keeping a lower temp makes corals vulnerable to higher temps, while valid, is not an adequate reason. After all, the converse could be said about maintaining higher temps; that they make the corals vulnerable to lower temps. Then there is the point made about optimum growth rates, but this is something that applies to certain specific corals in controlled laboratory situations. This is not a real analog to our aquariums, which are not quite so controlled in other factors and contain corals of many different varieties from many different regions and potentially even different oceans.

We've really gone overboard with this part of the list and you still seem to insist on saying we're recommending something that we're not.

1.) Julian Sprung is one of those authors that has perpetuated the need to keep temperatures below 80 degrees and incredibly stable. It's an absolute fact that there are many people that have have spectacular aquariums that run over 80 degrees and have fluctuations on warm days and when lights are on throughout the day with no apparent negatives. The unneeded supplement comment is in reference to most of the supplements his company offers. I'd be interested to see what Julian has to say on this topic now

2.) If your oxygen levels are low at 77 degrees they will still be low at 87 degrees. Sure, you could create some slippery slope where oxygen levels are barely sufficient in a tank at a lower temperature and they could become slightly dangerous if the temperature raises, but the chance of that happening is very small. Also, with the event of enexpensive and efficient pumps and skimmers being widely in the hobby now I don't see many people having low oxygen levels in their system.

3.) Greenbean nor I are advocating someone strive for wild temperature fluctuations. Simply put, if your temperatures are going up a few degrees slowly through the course of a day when your metal halide lights go on it's nothing to worry about. Not only that, it's quite natural and very similar to what happens on a reef.

4.) If the fact that temperatures in the 80's are completely natural and that temperature swings occur multiple times a day on a natural reef isn't convincing to you then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You should also consider the many very successful reef aquariums maintaining temps above 80 and having temp swings as not convincing.

[eskymick]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10579251#post10579251 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
What the heck is a gander anyhow? ;)

Someone from Michigan !!

Sorry ... couldn't resist.

[greenbean36191]

Why in hell would we be recommending that people don't care about the temperature swings or maintaining a tolerable temperature? Sure, people who have been in the hobby for some time and are quite good at all other elements may need not worry so much, but to the new guys this is bad advice.
Absolutely not. With all of the other things new hobbyists worry about why in the world should we have them chasing a goal that can only hurt their animals? Stability is not a natural condition for reef animals. There is no evidence that it reduces stress, and it only makes the animals more sensitive to newbie mistakes.

It is true that the oxygen depletion from higher temps will not be a problem for an aquarium in which there is rather good oxygenation to start with. Problem is that I don't think that is as common as you are assuming.
Eric Borneman did some tests on several aquaria and found most to be around 80%-90% of saturation with the lights on and falling to about 75% after 2 hours with lights off.

So what, are you suggesting that we try and impose hormesis on our livestock by varying the temp and putting them in higher temperature water? How should this practically be acheived? It should be done in a way similar to how it occurs in nature (according to the argument you guys are putting forth). Just simply allowing the temp in our tanks to sway back and forth is not replicating how it occurs in nature, sorry I don't buy it.
I made that comment in regards to Sprung and Delbeek's mention that as you near an animal's limits they will use more oxygen. It's essentially a non-issue since even in the low to mid 80's your corals aren't near their limits unless you've acclimatized them to unnaturally cool temperatures. It had nothing to do with a recommendation of what temperature to run your tank at.

No, just allowing the temp in our tanks to swing back and forth doesn't replicate nature. It's much slower than what happens in the wild. When I was working in the Bahamas one of the guys at the research station had temp loggers placed all over the reef, (which was recovering, not declining). There was a 5-8 degree variation everyday and at least once that I saw there was a 6 degree change within 15 minutes, which was the periodicity of his readings. When I was doing my work nearby I saw too many 3 and 4 degree changes to count and at least one almost instant 6 degree change, which you can REALLY feel when it happens.

Here are some current graphs from a few reefs to give you an idea of what daily changes look like.

Guam:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/msgprimate/guam.jpg

FL Keys (during the summer, which is when there is the least variation):
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/msgprimate/SombreroKey.jpg

Puerto Rico:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/msgprimate/PR.jpg

Telling people they should not care about temp swings is not helping anything. There is no denying that temp swings causes some stress
Not worrying about temperature swings helps the corals keep their natural tolerance to thermal stress. I have yet to see any evidence in the primary literature that normal temperature swings are a source of stress. Brian Helmuth's work that I mentioned earlier shows exactly the opposite. There was no stress response to increased temp up to 90 degrees from a coral kept under fluctuating conditions.

The idea that keeping a lower temp makes corals vulnerable to higher temps, while valid, is not an adequate reason. After all, the converse could be said about maintaining higher temps; that they make the corals vulnerable to lower temps.
That's not quite what people are saying, but it's not true anyway. People are saying that if you keep things stable then corals are more vulnerable to any change in temp, higher or lower. Even if things aren't stable, keeping corals on the low end does make them more vulnerable to increased temps. However, it's slightly easier for corals from higher temps to deal with colder ones.

[Rewd]

Great thread. The temp thing has always baffled me too and I agree completely with Peter and greenbean. People need to stop stressing about their tanks and just enjoy them.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

Is there a link to access this work by Brian Helmuth? I'd like to read it.

"4.) If the fact that temperatures in the 80's are completely natural and that temperature swings occur multiple times a day on a natural reef isn't convincing to you then we're just going to have to agree to disagree. You should also consider the many very successful reef aquariums maintaining temps above 80 and having temp swings as not convincing."

I wasn't doubting that these temperatures are natural. If you carefully read what I wrote, I was doubting the direct correlation of what works in nature works in the aquarium. Certainly, natural conditions are something to strive for, but we have to accept some limitations. This is why I'd prefer to model my aquarium after what has been found to work within the aquarium hobby, not directly after reefs themselves (I don't have nearly enough resources to do that). Furthermore, I never debated that other people have had success with higher temperature tanks with temp swings. Its just that I view it more of a case of good luck and maintaining other parameters very well than a case of what one should follow.

"3.) Greenbean nor I are advocating someone strive for wild temperature fluctuations. Simply put, if your temperatures are going up a few degrees slowly through the course of a day when your metal halide lights go on it's nothing to worry about. Not only that, it's quite natural and very similar to what happens on a reef. "

Followed by a comment by Greenbean:

"No, just allowing the temp in our tanks to swing back and forth doesn't replicate nature. It's much slower than what happens in the wild. When I was working in the Bahamas one of the guys at the research station had temp loggers placed all over the reef, (which was recovering, not declining). There was a 5-8 degree variation everyday and at least once that I saw there was a 6 degree change within 15 minutes, which was the periodicity of his readings. When I was doing my work nearby I saw too many 3 and 4 degree changes to count and at least one almost instant 6 degree change, which you can REALLY feel when it happens."

I see some discrepency between what is suggested in terms of temp swings (few degrees warming over the day from MH vs. 6 degree shifts instantaneously).

This debate is starting to get wearisome. I'm not going to be able to convince you guys that we should strive for stable conditions, you guys aren't going to be able to convince me that wild temp swings are a good thing in the aquarium I'll read the Helmuth article if I can get access to it, then I'm out of it.

[Aquarist007]

oops just got corrected on another misconception --thanks peter--
Feeding clams cyclopeeze is not recommended due to the size of it--one should stick to phyo.
Also lighting is not as great a concern with adult clams as the young since they can rely on established filter feeding more then the young

you have to love this thread :)

[Peter Eichler]

For the fourth time... :rolleye1: Just because we are pointing out the conditions on a reef does not mean we're telling people to go out and try to replicate it. The original point was... "Stop worrying about your daily swing in temperature from your lights heating the water. There's no need to go buy expensive chillers or controllers to always maintain the same temperature. In addition to being pretty natural the temperature swing may be good for your aquarium inhabitants and make them less likely to succumb should you have a more major temperature swing. In closed aquaria I wouldn't suggest testing the limits of this, but if your swings are under 5 degrees from day to night I wouldn't worry much." At no point in this thread have either of us suggested big temperature sudden swings or testing the extremes of the temperature range for home aquaria.

Also, if you look at some of my other misconceptions you'll see that I suggest other parameters be maintained differently than what might be found in nature. I've never found temperature to be one of those things. In other words, don't make it sound like I'm suggesting we should follow the conditions of a reef when that's not how I go about my reef keeping practices.

[Roy G. Biv]

My temps over the last week.
My reef = Happy reef.

http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t251/pmolan/temp.jpg

[zemuron114]

i personally worry alot about temp swings.. why? because i had a considerably higher temp swing then i normally do this summer in Boston when my tank hit 88. It was consistantly at 79-83 for a long time. 5 degrees doesn't sound like much, but it killed, 5 flame wrasse, rhomboids, lineatus, helfrich, tiny goldflake.... and started to deteriorate my hammer corals and killed 5 frags of SPS.

This to me is something worth mentioning and being concerned about... ? Its cut and dry when i look at it, or atleast from my experience.

Isn't it a proven fact that if the temp fluctuates more the 4 degrees in a 12 hour period it can cause enough stress on fish to cause ich? I've heard that multiple times from different "experts".

Just a thought. Overall, this is a great thread :)

[cayars]

I can see this happening zemuron114. You've got what could be 9 degrees (88-79) of change going on there which is pushing it.

However, if your tank is running hotter in the summer during the day with lights on and cooler at night say maybe down to 79 then the thing to do is run/adjust the heater so the night time temps top out at 82. The corals get more used to the range of 82-85 during the course of the day and then have more "tolerance" of a couple of degrees either way from the tanks "natural" average.

In other words don't fight the temps but work you system into them. If you don't have a cooler don't sweat it but use the heaters to keep the tank more stable in the upper range!

That might sound strange. Use your HEATER instead of your COOLER in summer but it's true.

I've got 300 gallons outside (uncovered with no protection or UV filtration) and 1000 gallons inside all connected together. My night time temps would fall to about 75 with day temps at around 85. Instead of trying to cool the system down to 81 or 82 I instead heat the water at night to keep the temps at 81.5/82 and allow the tank to fluctuate in the 81.5/82-85 range daily. If it's a little hotter out and I go up to 87 or so it's no big deal this way. Same with a little colder if the heaters can't keep up at night.

I've got a bunch of fans and another 2K watts worth of heaters I can turn on if needed via the aquacontroller but I don't have my fans turn on until temps are over 87 and I don't fire up the 2nd array of heaters until temps go below 79. I WANT my corals to get a daily range of temps only a degree or two below the natural reef (since it's cheaper for me).

As for other parameters I keep Alk in the 10-11 dKH range and keep calcium at 420-440. I keep my pH pretty steady with about a .2 daily change but normally keep it nailed at my target of 8.45-8.50. I think pH should range in the 8.3-8.6 range like on the reefs. I keep ORP in the 380-420 range (trying to dial in 380-400). I'd allow Nitrates approach 10 but they never do in my system and test at 0 on my tanks these days since I've got so much sand and rock. I took my nitrate reactors off line last week so I'll see if nitrates come go up at all. I keep PO4 by meter in the .2 range which doesn't cause cyno or other problems but allows there to be enough in the tank for normal function. Mg, Strontium, Iodine, Iron, etc are tested about once a month and adjusted slowly if needed.

I don't do water changes and run a mixed reef tank, ray/shark tank, outside pond & trigger tank all of which are heavy stocked (expect pond cause it's new) and joined together. I do take water from my main system for QT use via UV filters and I skim wet with 3 protein skimmers (4th one ready to go online if needed) so I do add "some" salt water to the system daily which so far has taken care of micro nutrients.

I know many people will say you should do water changes but I don't have anything I need to export that I'm aware of and I test all major elements at least monthly and make corrections if needed. I add 10-30 gallons of salt water weekly to the system so I know my micro nutrients are taken care of. Hence no expensive water changes for me.

Carlo

PS If I did do water changes I would use 2 small pumps and change out a couple of gallons everyday so I never have to worry about stressing the system. I'm not a fan of water changes over 10% unless it's a dire emergency. I think normal water changes cause far more problems then temps do...

[zemuron114]

Keeping it hot is not what i would want to do though. Most of the Fairy wrasses in the industry are collected in cooler temps. Long term they can't be kept in higher temps. That is my theory as to why most people have a healthy fairy wrasse one day and it is gone the next...

good idea though... i never thought of it that way.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10590474#post10590474 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zemuron114
Keeping it hot is not what i would want to do though. Most of the Fairy wrasses in the industry are collected in cooler temps. Long term they can't be kept in higher temps. That is my theory as to why most people have a healthy fairy wrasse one day and it is gone the next...

good idea though... i never thought of it that way.

However, back when lower temps were quite common people had even more issues keeping fairy wrasses alive than they do now. I think they simply don't ship well and have a harder time with the acclimation process in general than other fish. There are other families of wrasses that are routinely collected in warmer water and they have even worse survival rates. Lastly, I don't know where you're getting that most of them in the industry are from cooler/deeper waters. A far as I know most of them are from shallower waters with only a few species coming rom deeper waters that would be cooler.

[cayars]

If it's worth anything I've got a handful of different wrasse and they are all thriving well is 80 temps. I've had 4 for over 2 years, 1 for about 6 months and a couple for a couple of months but they don't count since they haven't been in the tank long enough. If a fish lasts 6 months in a tank generally speaking it will make it long term. I think the large majority of fish that expire do so under 6 months so until that point I don't consider it successful.

Carlo

PS running tanks hotter on purpose in the summer seems to "contradict" the advertisement (chillers/coolers) we see/read and goes against "conventional wisdom" but once you stop and think about it, you find it makes a lot of sense and solves the problem.

[tonyf]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10579537#post10579537 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191

11.) A UV sterilizer will kill everything good or bad in your tank and significantly reduce disease, food, or filtering capacity.

Even when UV sterilizers have near 100% kill rates of the organisms passing through, in recirculating systems they don't make a huge impact on the overall populations. They are limited by the fact that the breeding population in the system is always much larger than the number of individuals being killed. They can also only kill those organisms that are in the water column. There are numerous experiments confirming that the use of UV sterilizers on recirculating systems either has no significant impact on parasite populations or on infection rates. [/B]

Yes and no. A benefit of UV is taking out water-borne pathogens and algae spore. After 18 months of battling muddy brown water, a UV unit cleaned up my tank overnight. I have not been without UV since that time.

Tone :bum:

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10590826#post10590826 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tonyf
Yes and no. A benefit of UV is taking out water-borne pathogens and algae spore. After 18 months of battling muddy brown water, a UV unit cleaned up my tank overnight. I have not been without UV since that time.

Tone :bum:

He's refering mostly to parasites. A scenario like yours in one of the few times I would actually suggest a UV sterlizer.

[Rue]

Great thread guys...picking up lots more info! :D

[tonyf]

This is a great thread ... with qualifications. I believe that it is dangerous to lessen the importance of the common wisdom in respect the parameters / metrics of our captive environments. What is perpetrated in the thread is undeniable, but at the same time a disservice to the lesser experienced aquarist. Just as we are now finding that our kids are at an educational disadvantage through the destruction of 'old school' education systems, so inexperienced aquarists will find themselves at a great disadvantage in getting to a point where they can enjoy their displays. My view is that learning the 'common wisdom' first will engender a more disciplined approach to the husbandry of our captive environments and therefore greater opportunity for success. Once the aquarist has become educated and experienced then loosen the reigns a bit and explore the tolerances of the systems.

Tone :)

[oysterxfast5]

Now on the temp argument I haven't check my temp in over eight months, I got the heater set with a thermometer at about 80.5 and every thing has been fine since Knock on wood. It only varies maybe 1 degrees or so. I am sure I will get someone on here telling me that I should be doing it differently, but I see it as it has been fine almost a year i am not changing it.

[mbbuna]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10588509#post10588509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
oops just got corrected on another misconception --thanks peter--
Feeding clams cyclopeeze is not recommended due to the size of it--one should stick to phyo.
Also lighting is not as great a concern with adult clams as the young since they can rely on established filter feeding more then the young

you have to love this thread :)

Tridacnid clams rely on photosynthesis (both young and old) not filter feeding. only Gigas has been shown to increase its filter feeding capacity with age, and even at that not by much. clams have the ability to uptake nutrients right through there flesh to feed there zoox, no need to filter particulate when the raw nutrients are easily available. will they filter? sure. do they rely on it? not in the least.

on the same topic

clams under 3" (or 4" or what ever you might read) can not sustain themselves through photosynthesis alone because there mantles aren't developed enough to house enough zoox to feed them, and or there mantles aren't large enough to house enough zoox to support them. false

within a few days of a clam going through it veliger larval stage there mantles are fully developed and full of zoox. the size of there mantles stays the same proportionately to the size of the clam through out its life. these tiny clam are completely capable of sustaining themselves through photosynthesis alone.

one more

squamosa, derasa and gigas "prefer" the sand. false

all the tridacna clams are most commonly found up on the reef. the only tridacnid clams that are commonly found in the sand are Hippopus species. some tridacna clams can be found on the sand but only in very sheltered areas where the sand doesnt move.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10590996#post10590996 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tonyf
This is a great thread ... with qualifications. I believe that it is dangerous to lessen the importance of the common wisdom in respect the parameters / metrics of our captive environments. What is perpetrated in the thread is undeniable, but at the same time a disservice to the lesser experienced aquarist. Just as we are now finding that our kids are at an educational disadvantage through the destruction of 'old school' education systems, so inexperienced aquarists will find themselves at a great disadvantage in getting to a point where they can enjoy their displays. My view is that learning the 'common wisdom' first will engender a more disciplined approach to the husbandry of our captive environments and therefore greater opportunity for success. Once the aquarist has become educated and experienced then loosen the reigns a bit and explore the tolerances of the systems.

Tone :)

What if the common wisdom is incorrect?

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10591744#post10591744 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
What if the common wisdom is incorrect?

I believe this concept is called misconception ;)

[Aquarist007]

Another misconception I have had cleared up is around the actual value a u.v. sterilizer has.
Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.
Using a sterilzer along with a refugium can be counter productive destroying some of the copopods etc that you are trying to supply the main tank.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

"Another misconception I have had cleared up is around the actual value a u.v. sterilizer has.
Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.
Using a sterilzer along with a refugium can be counter productive destroying some of the copopods etc that you are trying to supply the main tank."

First of all, UV sterilizers have to be running at a low enough flow rate and a high enough intensity to kill copepods, which require more uw/cm2 than most of the strongest stuff we're trying to kill (parasites, for instance). Then consider that most protein skimmers, especially needlewheel ones, probably result in more copepod fatalities than your average UV sterilizer. And finally consider that many people I know of use them and still report having tons of pods.

I certainly don't think that UV sterilizers are necessary for this hobby. However, they do seem to help clarify the water, keep down certain algae, and are good for avoiding certain diseases. The reason why experienced reefers tend to not gravitate towards buying a UV sterilizer is because they are doing a good job of keeping the aforementioned in check without one.

[HBtank]

Nice thread..

One thing though.... While I think there might be some generalizations about certian corals and their flow demands, I think that almost any reef aquarium will benefit from the maximum flow you can accomodate.

Though I think that you might be right in pointing out a myth, some may take it as as a reason to skimp on flow, which is not a smart move IMO.

Though certain corals may not have their optimum environment in a higher flow tank, I think the aquarium as a whole will be much healthier.

You can always orient your flow to have micro-environments inside your tank with lower and higher flow areas. I personally think any type of tank (even a low flow softy tank) can have high flow if some thought is put into it.

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582441#post10582441 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe


As far as the temperature thing goes, there is plenty of scientific evidence and reason to support keeping temperature at/around 78 degrees. The counter-argument that "their natural habitat experiences wild temperature shifts from low 70s to low 90s" is fallacious because we are not talking about keeping them in their natural habitat.

Thats such a cop-out answer. If you want to say we shouldnt keep them in natural situations because "our reefs are different" then the same thing could be said about light, flow, etc.


I've noticed significantly better health, and significantly greater resilience since I stopped regulating temperature.

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10585411#post10585411 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Sprung is a good aquarist and wrote some good books but he's been wrong many times before and he'll be wrong again. He's a hobbyist just like many of us and he has been known to follow common beliefs and trends just like many of us. When I want a supplement I don't need I'll trust Sprung. Other than that I'll put a little more faith in natural conditions and personal observations. For years I was made deathly affraid of temps breaking the 80 degree mark because of Sprung, and it was complete and total nonsense.

I second that.

We need to start realizing that just because a person is an "expert" doesnt mean they know a whole lot about related topics:



"The principle difference regarding temperature between the natural environment and the aquarium has to do with oxygen availability...
Take a look at the difference in oxygen saturation between 78' and 90'. Its negligible.


Also, step back from the term "expert". NOBODY really knows anything about these animals.



Since when is spawning a bad thing?

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593780#post10593780 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Thats such a cop-out answer. If you want to say we shouldnt keep them in natural situations because "our reefs are different" then the same thing could be said about light, flow, etc.


I've noticed significantly better health, and significantly greater resilience since I stopped regulating temperature.

What are the signs of significantly better health---curious about this because it becomes a good yardstick for judging how well we are doing/learning.
you mention not regulating temp--I assume you keep it within an acceptable range of high and lows?

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593953#post10593953 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
What are the signs of significantly better health---curious about this because it becomes a good yardstick for judging how well we are doing/learning.
you mention not regulating temp--I assume you keep it within an acceptable range of high and lows?


(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.


As to better health, better colors in the SPS, better growth, etc. When I was keeping the tank stable at 78, if I had a single day at 82, growth stopped, everything looked stressed, and it took a couple weeks to recover. Now nothing cares.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593817#post10593817 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
I second that.

We need to start realizing that just because a person is an "expert" doesnt mean they know a whole lot about related topics:


I like to distinguish between experienced and experts. We all know the value of practical experince especially with this is such a hands on hobby.
I also like to distinguish between a few experienced and alot experienced.


this is why these threads are a great learning tool.:)

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593994#post10593994 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.


As to better health, better colors in the SPS, better growth, etc. When I was keeping the tank stable at 78, if I had a single day at 82, growth stopped, everything looked stressed, and it took a couple weeks to recover. Now nothing cares.


thank you Rich----but have you not noticed any conditions that help with coral growth etc rather then just survival rates?

[Aquarist007]

oops--sorry I didn't read the rest of your post--duh I need a coffee

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10594022#post10594022 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
oops--sorry I didn't read the rest of your post--duh I need a coffee


Naw, I was editing and adding on when you were posting

I think the major issue here is that we're talking about two different sets of data.


People who keep temperature stable, have a spike, lose some corals and scream "My temp went to 84, and I lost these 3 corals, theres no way I'm letting my temp bounce around", which, IMO, is a perfectly logical leap.

The problem is that the stable conditions are what is causing the spike to be deadly, and its tough to get a tank out of that 'stable rutt' without killing things, but once you do, the tank becomes much more resilient, and much happier.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593994#post10593994 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.


As to better health, better colors in the SPS, better growth, etc. When I was keeping the tank stable at 78, if I had a single day at 82, growth stopped, everything looked stressed, and it took a couple weeks to recover. Now nothing cares.

I guess this goes back to what Greenbean stated in the beginning--that we actually teach our corals ect to become dependant on a certain range by narrowing it for them--then when fluctuation occurs they are affected--kind of like a self fullfilling profacy

speaking of being affected by change--is there not a spell check that's available--can't believe how bad my spelling has gotten since not using a word processor:o

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10592754#post10592754 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
"Another misconception I have had cleared up is around the actual value a u.v. sterilizer has.
Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.
Using a sterilzer along with a refugium can be counter productive destroying some of the copopods etc that you are trying to supply the main tank."

First of all, UV sterilizers have to be running at a low enough flow rate and a high enough intensity to kill copepods, which require more uw/cm2 than most of the strongest stuff we're trying to kill (parasites, for instance). Then consider that most protein skimmers, especially needlewheel ones, probably result in more copepod fatalities than your average UV sterilizer. And finally consider that many people I know of use them and still report having tons of pods.



I certainly don't think that UV sterilizers are necessary for this hobby. However, they do seem to help clarify the water, keep down certain algae, and are good for avoiding certain diseases. The reason why experienced reefers tend to not gravitate towards buying a UV sterilizer is because they are doing a good job of keeping the aforementioned in check without one.

Gee--I feel lonely out here on the chopping block all by myself. Maybe some of the guys that convinced me to take off my uv sterilzer will join me at the plate :lol:

[greenbean36191]

Is there a link to access this work by Brian Helmuth? I'd like to read it.
I don't think it's available anywhere for free. If you want to look it up a good one is:
Castillo, K.D. and Helmuth, B.S.T., 2005. Influence of thermal history on the response of Montastrea annularis to short-term temperature exposure. Marine Biology. 148, 261-270.

"Scleractinian corals are stenothermic, but their ability to tolerate elevated seawater temperatures likely varies with their history of thermal exposure (Coles and Jokiel 1977). That is, corals that have been exposed more frequently to fluctuations in seawater temperatures or to elevated temperatures may be better able to withstand temperature extremes (Coles and Jokiel 1977; Moberg et
al. 1997; Brown et al. 2002)."

"The present study showed that ambient seawater temperature experienced by inner lagoon reef M. annularis was significantly higher than temperatures on the outer barrier reef at an equivalent depth during a non-bleaching year. Our respirometry measurements suggest that this observed difference in thermal history may lead to a decreased physiological response by inner lagoon reef M. annularis when exposed to elevated temperature."

"At both inner and outer reef sites, our data show significant high-frequency variability in thermal regimes, especially during the summer months. Temperature changes of up to 2C [~4.5F] were recorded on a daily basis... Importantly, our measurements of photosynthesis and respiration suggest that M. annularis responds physiologically to these changes in temperature."

Others to take a look at:
Leichter, J.J., B. Helmuth, and A. Fischer. 2006. Variation beneath the surface: quantifying complex thermal environments on coral reefs in the Caribbean, Bahamas, and Florida J. Mar. Res., 64(4): 563-588.

Coles, S.L. and Jokiel, P.L., 1977. Effects of temperature on photosynthesis and respiration in hermatypic corals. Marine Biology. 43, 209-216.

[greenbean36191]

A benefit of UV is taking out water-borne pathogens and algae spore. After 18 months of battling muddy brown water, a UV unit cleaned up my tank overnight.
There are certainly benefits to using UV. Oxidizing organics and improving water clarity being the chief one. The point is that when a person asks about using UV they're usually warned that it will kill everything good or bad and will have a negative impact on food availability, filtering capacity, or diversity. They're also promoted as a way of controlling pathogens. There are numerous studies that show that on recirculating systems, neither one is true. Even in idealized theoretical models their impact has been shown to be limited.

Maybe some of the guys that convinced me to take off my uv sterilzer will join me at the plate
Your sterilizer was running in line after your refugium, reducing the effectiveness of the fuge.

[greenbean36191]

i personally worry alot about temp swings.. why? because i had a considerably higher temp swing then i normally do this summer in Boston when my tank hit 88. It was consistantly at 79-83 for a long time. 5 degrees doesn't sound like much, but it killed, 5 flame wrasse, rhomboids, lineatus, helfrich, tiny goldflake.... and started to deteriorate my hammer corals and killed 5 frags of SPS.
A 5 degree excursion above the normal maximum is a big deal, especially when it gets to 88 which is entering the lethal range for some species. It's not the same thing as a 5 degree daily fluctuation. Also see Rich's last comment.

Isn't it a proven fact that if the temp fluctuates more the 4 degrees in a 12 hour period it can cause enough stress on fish to cause ich? I've heard that multiple times from different "experts".
Nope.

[Fish Filet]

Misconception: Noobs know nothing.


Conclusion: When you assume, you make an @$$ out of you and me, both.

[virginiadiver69]

cayars, Do you have any pics of your system? Sounds really interesting.

[Sk8r]

I'd add another misconception: that kalk is hard to do. It scared me off for a while, and then I realized it was simpler than what I was doing.
Related misconception: kalk is dangerous---easy to overdose. Not actually as dangerous as fresh water itself, imho. I've accidentally shot a limited amount of kalk slurry into my tank---but far more than I'd have counted safe--- and had no ill effect.

I'd say over all it's much safer than the numerous ways a newbie can screw up buffer/calcium dosing by hand.

[HBtank]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10596551#post10596551 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sk8r
I'd add another misconception: that kalk is hard to do. It scared me off for a while, and then I realized it was simpler than what I was doing.
Related misconception: kalk is dangerous---easy to overdose. Not actually as dangerous as fresh water itself, imho. I've accidentally shot a limited amount of kalk slurry into my tank---but far more than I'd have counted safe--- and had no ill effect.

I'd say over all it's much safer than the numerous ways a newbie can screw up buffer/calcium dosing by hand.

I understand your point, but do you really consider my ATO going crazy and dumping 3 gallons of freshwater into my 100 gallon system to be more dangerous than it dumping 3 gallons of super-saturated kalk solution into my tank??

I find it hard to believe you think freshwater is more dangerous than kalk.

Anyways, just an opinion from a guy who has read more than his fair share of kalk ATO disasters. Why I chose FW ATO and two-part dosing.

[reefer1024]

Rich I think you are dead on in regards to temp. The more you allow your tank to fluctuate the more resistant to extremes it will be. My reef normally swings between 79.5 and 83 with the occasional 85 on a really hot day. Yesterday it was almost 100 where I live and I forgot to turn the air conditioner on when i left. I got home at 8pm to find my tank was 88.4. To my amazement all SPS, LPS, zoas, rics, and fish where perfectly fine.

Here are a few more myths:

1. Nano tanks will have unstable salinity compared to larger tanks. The rate salinity changes is controlled by 3 things. The amount of surface area in relation to the volume of the system. Temperature and air flow over the waters surface. In many cases a very large tank will be less stable then a very small one. (I think the same is true for many other things in a nano, but I'm not trying to write a novel here.)

2. I often hear people say that they are just going to add a shrimp to their overstocked tank because they are already at the limit of fish. Hate to break it to you, but shrimp eat and poop too.

[USC-fan]

/\/\/\1 is true. ;)

[davidryder]

I'm not sure if these are misconceptions; they sound to me more like guidelines with a few caveats.

Anyway, good read. :D

[davidryder]

Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. <i>Everyone</i> seems to have an expert opinion on <i>everything</i>. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

[Peter Eichler]

17ish.) You should test for nitrites regularly since they are toxic to saltwater aquarium inhabitants.

Nitrites will only cause apparent stress in most saltwater fish and invertebrates at VERY high levels. Some marine fish and invertebrates have shown to be tolerant of nitrite well in excess of 1000ppm.

Conclusion: After the initial nitrogen cycle is complete there is little to no reason to ever test for nitrites again in a marine aquarium.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10595427#post10595427 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
There are certainly benefits to using UV. Oxidizing organics and improving water clarity being the chief one. The point is that when a person asks about using UV they're usually warned that it will kill everything good or bad and will have a negative impact on food availability, filtering capacity, or diversity. They're also promoted as a way of controlling pathogens. There are numerous studies that show that on recirculating systems, neither one is true. Even in idealized theoretical models their impact has been shown to be limited.


Your sterilizer was running in line after your refugium, reducing the effectiveness of the fuge.

Yeah up in the sky--its a bird--its a plane--no it's super greenbean to the rescue :)

thanks for the post---if the "certain" benifit is that they will enhance water quality can't you get the same result with running carbon in a phosban reactor(a lot cheaper too)

[USC-fan]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10597561#post10597561 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. <i>Everyone</i> seems to have an expert opinion on <i>everything</i>. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases. I thought you just put garlic on the food to make the fish eat. I did this a couple times when i put new fish in my tank. Seems to help....

[davidryder]

I don't really have an opinion on the use of garlic (or experience for that matter) I was just using it as a simple example. I'm sure somebody knows though.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10597561#post10597561 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. <i>Everyone</i> seems to have an expert opinion on <i>everything</i>. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

Since you see a lot of them, point them out and put them up for debate... To me, the cause and effect relationship is why a lot of these misconceptions exist in the first place. Blindly following what's popular rather than questioning things is certainly another big reason why they exist.

I don't expect people accept what I and others are saying in this thread as gosphel. However, at least very least hopefully it will cause some people to take a step back and question why they're doing things the way they are. Also, hopefully it will make some people stop recycling incorrect information over and over again.

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10597795#post10597795 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Since you see a lot of them, point them out and put them up for debate... To me, the cause and effect relationship is why a lot of these misconceptions exist in the first place. Blindly following what's popular rather than questioning things is certainly another big reason why they exist.

I don't expect people accept what I and others are saying in this thread as gosphel. However, at least very least hopefully it will cause some people to take a step back and question why they're doing things the way they are. Also, hopefully it will make some people stop recycling incorrect information over and over again.

Well, I'm totally with you about awareness and regurgitation. Too many state opinions as fact and practically copy&paste info from other threads.

The temp thing is what has really been sticking out to me... I have never tried to regulate my temp (don't even have a heater) BUT I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that just because you at some point stopped regulating your temperature at some point everything looked healthier. I neither agree nor disagree about temp regulation causing harm but I don't think that it being casually observed by a handful of hobbyists makes it fact - or guideline for that matter. I obviously don't care about regulation - however - for the purpose of algae control alone I would like to see my temps as low as possible.

Anyway, I am extremely skeptical when it comes to advice or secondhand information. Healthy skeptical - not conspiracy theory skeptical :lol: I am very reluctant to repeat information that I'm not positive about. And don't get me wrong I haven't dismissed any thoughts or ideas from this thread (well, maybe 1 or 2), but I am wary about it.

[Sk8r]

HBtank---don't know about the super-saturated kalk bit: but I dropped about a gallon of kalk bottom slurry into my 54 [80 total gallons] with less problem than I did when I dumped about 5 g of fresh ro/di into a 54 with 64 total gallons...but I can agree with you, that topoff disasters are in general among the worst and most common disasters among those just starting with saltwater tanks.

Since I finally got all my topoff-related switches on one power strip with an easy 'off' button my life has been much calmer. I've now systematized water changes with the mantra "first cut off the ATO and THEN draw water from your tank...."

I also use a kalk reactor, which makes consistent concentration of the kalkwasser easier.

[Peter Eichler]

Thanks to the mods for correcting my Bitburger induced spelling of misconception! :p I'd also like to thank Bitburger for giving me the the inspiration to create this thread. In fact I think I may have found the reason for German superiority in aquarium keeping for so many years. Drink Bitburger and you can have a reef aquarium that looks like this in no time!

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/totm/index.php

[davidryder]

That is an amazing aquarium...Peter are you on a binge? :lol: :lol:

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10598138#post10598138 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
Well, I'm totally with you about awareness and regurgitation. Too many state opinions as fact and practically copy&paste info from other threads.

The temp thing is what has really been sticking out to me... I have never tried to regulate my temp (don't even have a heater) BUT I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that just because you at some point stopped regulating your temperature at some point everything looked healthier. I neither agree nor disagree about temp regulation causing harm but I don't think that it being casually observed by a handful of hobbyists makes it fact - or guideline for that matter. I obviously don't care about regulation - however - for the purpose of algae control alone I would like to see my temps as low as possible.

Anyway, I am extremely skeptical when it comes to advice or secondhand information. Healthy skeptical - not conspiracy theory skeptical :lol: I am very reluctant to repeat information that I'm not positive about. And don't get me wrong I haven't dismissed any thoughts or ideas from this thread (well, maybe 1 or 2), but I am wary about it.

I think you and others have read into my comments about temperature fluctuations a little too much. Perhaps it was how I worded it, or maybe it's simply because always keeping your temperature stable has been pounded into people for many years. The real purpose of posting it was to let people know that little fluctuations in temperature many experience for MH lights and other factors are not the big problem they've been made out to be. As an aside I pointed out that fluctuations may actually beneficial, but I'm but no means suggesting that people work towards having temperature fluctuations if they don't already have them.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10598249#post10598249 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
That is an amazing aquarium...Peter are you on a binge? :lol: :lol:

I haven't stopped drinking Bitburger in 4 days. In that time my corals have all doubled in size and "colored up"! ;)

Someone get me an endorsement deal!

[davidryder]

:rollface: :lol:

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10598286#post10598286 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
I think you and others have read into my commenst about temperature fluctuations a little too much. Perhaps it was how I worded it, or maybe it's simply because always keeping your temperature stable has been pounded into people for many years. The real purpose of posting it was to let people know that little fluctuations in temperature many experience for MH lights and other factors are not the big problem they've been made out to be. As an aside I pointed out that fluctuations may actually beneficial, but I'm but no means suggesting that people work towards having temperature fluctuations if they don't already have them.

Sorry, I was more or less referring to the debate that ensued your comment

[thejrc]

All temp fluctuation arguments and kalk arguments aside there is one that was brought up (somewhat) in here that I have been experimenting with myself here. The idea that U.V. sterilizers will kill "pods" along with the needlewheel emaciating them.

I've been a bit too attached to harpacticoid copepods lately (or so my friends and neighbors think) and one of the nifty things I have done to experiment is to run a culture through UV as well as an impeller pump. I will tell you this from MY personal experience (once again, I am a "garage" expert at most, and thus... not an expert at all...)

Needlewheels DO shred copepods in the copepodite (adult) stages but many in the naupliar stages will still make it through. I've been trying to come up with a tide pool simulation and have been playing with several ideas with the fear that a pump will tear these guys apart and have found through examination of population in 5ml samples that impeller pumps with larger impellers do not affect population at all. This would make sense as the impeller blades are flat and have a tendancy to push water with very little "cutting" through the tension like a needle wheel would.

As far as U.V. goes, as stated before will need a very slow flow rate and high exposure to be effective against a lot of the items found in our reef tanks. I used a current gamma 8 watt UV unit inline with a maxijet 1200 on one of my cultures as a test with no measurable population loss, in fact this culture seems to have grown faster (most likely due to flow related causes and NOT the UV sterilizer).

While I'm still playing with these features, I must debunk the "pumps kill your pods" misconception as impeller pumps have had no effect on several of my cultures. The U.V. myths are still yet to be fully explored but without prolonged exposure I fail to see how larger sized organisms like copepods and amphipods can truly be affected, what drives this nail even deeper is that in order to cycle a tanks contents through a U.V. Sterilizer at a low enough flow rate but large enough capacity to erradicate parasites and bacteria effectively it would require one hell of a large unit.

Awesome thread BTW

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10599003#post10599003 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
All temp fluctuation arguments and kalk arguments aside there is one that was brought up (somewhat) in here that I have been experimenting with myself here. The idea that U.V. sterilizers will kill "pods" along with the needlewheel emaciating them.

I've been a bit too attached to harpacticoid copepods lately (or so my friends and neighbors think) and one of the nifty things I have done to experiment is to run a culture through UV as well as an impeller pump. I will tell you this from MY personal experience (once again, I am a "garage" expert at most, and thus... not an expert at all...)

Needlewheels DO shred copepods in the copepodite (adult) stages but many in the naupliar stages will still make it through. I've been trying to come up with a tide pool simulation and have been playing with several ideas with the fear that a pump will tear these guys apart and have found through examination of population in 5ml samples that impeller pumps with larger impellers do not affect population at all. This would make sense as the impeller blades are flat and have a tendancy to push water with very little "cutting" through the tension like a needle wheel would.

As far as U.V. goes, as stated before will need a very slow flow rate and high exposure to be effective against a lot of the items found in our reef tanks. I used a current gamma 8 watt UV unit inline with a maxijet 1200 on one of my cultures as a test with no measurable population loss, in fact this culture seems to have grown faster (most likely due to flow related causes and NOT the UV sterilizer).

While I'm still playing with these features, I must debunk the "pumps kill your pods" misconception as impeller pumps have had no effect on several of my cultures. The U.V. myths are still yet to be fully explored but without prolonged exposure I fail to see how larger sized organisms like copepods and amphipods can truly be affected, what drives this nail even deeper is that in order to cycle a tanks contents through a U.V. Sterilizer at a low enough flow rate but large enough capacity to erradicate parasites and bacteria effectively it would require one hell of a large unit.

Awesome thread BTW

Back in the good old days when the Jaubery method was first introduced to the hobby it was suggested by a few "experts" that the use of pumps with an impeller shouldn't be be used since they would decimate the natural plankton populations. There were people trying dump bucket systems thanks to Jaubert and the authors that were touting his methods. There were also people seeking out very expensive screw type pumps that were believed to be less harmful to the "plankton". Around that time once people realized how impractical those solutions were refugiums were born out of the turf scrubbers used by Jaubert. Most of them were designed to be hangon models and the water was pushed through that container so the "plankton" living in the refugium wouldn't come in contact with the pump before it was returned to the system. Some other regugiums has intricate drift systems and some were even air driven IIRC. Some years later some other "experts" as well as aquarists tested the effects of more conventional pumps on the "plankton" population in our aquariums and it was found that overall the populations were not greatly impacted. Which brings us back to today where most people have "refugiums" that are little more than algae scrubbers of a different vain in their sumps.

Some good things happened as a result of the Jaubert method though. Deep sandbeds sprung up from there, which if nothing else made many people realize they have other options besides a bare bottom tank. The use of algae as nutrient export became more common. This is pure speculation on my part but I can't help but think that pumps such as the Turbelle were inspired by some of the beliefs which Jaubert held about plankton populations and conventional pumps. I'm probably forgetting a few as well...

Sorry for the quick/incomplete history lesson :)

[thejrc]

Back in the good old days when the Jaubery method was first introduced to the hobby it was suggested by a few "experts" that the use of pumps with an impeller shouldn't be be used since they would decimate the natural plankton populations. There were people trying dump bucket systems thanks to Jaubert and the authors that were touting his methods. There were also people seeking out very expensive screw type pumps that were believed to be less harmful to the "plankton". Around that time once people realized how impractical those solutions were refugiums were born out of the turf scrubbers used by Jaubert. Most of them were designed to be hangon models and the water was pushed through that container so the "plankton" living in the refugium wouldn't come in contact with the pump before it was returned to the system. Some other regugiums has intricate drift systems and some were even air driven IIRC. Some years later some other "experts" as well as aquarists tested the effects of more conventional pumps on the "plankton" population in our aquariums and it was found that overall the populations were not greatly impacted. Which brings us back to today where most people have "refugiums" that are little more than algae scrubbers of a different vain in their sumps.

Some good things happened as a result of the Jaubert method though. Deep sandbeds sprung up from there, which if nothing else made many people realize they have other options besides a bare bottom tank. The use of algae as nutrient export became more common. This is pure speculation on my part but I can't help but think that pumps such as the Turbelle were inspired by some of the beliefs which Jaubert held about plankton populations and conventional pumps. I'm probably forgetting a few as well...

Sorry for the quick/incomplete history lesson

No need to apologize at all, in fact it's interesting to learn where this first misconception came from. And I cant argue that many breakthroughs in our vast "hobby" have been the result of misconceptions or simple hobbyist study! I think the perils lie in everyone taking any particular recommendation or finding to heart and falling for the good ole "expert" flaw. In any field of study there have always been so called "experts" and so called "fiddlers and hobbyists" who have argued and debated! It's interesting to see how the idea of argument and debate, and the levels of experts and fiddlers have both funneled quite a bit to a vast majority of discoveries.

Perhaps someday I'll have a "breakthrough" finding with my copepod cultures, I must say it's one of the reasons why even now I sit here in my garage examining worms that have invaded one of my cultures under a cheap garage sale microscope. But I dont think I will ever be able to claim that I am an expert... as I have way too much to learn about everything. (This is one of the reasons why I like this thread in particular).

On the subject of turbelles and worm drive pumps, since I am working on this tide pool simulation it is one of the things I had never considered and it might just be the answer to what I am trying to acheive. I must point out that even out of context thoughts and comments often lead to great ideas in the context of a field of study.

Since we're all in the process of debunking myths, I must ask.....

has anyone studied amphipods at length enough here to say whether or not they really impact copepod populations through ingestion? (laymans terms, do they eat them all up?).

[Peter Eichler]

I'm not sure if what you're asking for exists, but if it does you'll probably find it here. :)

http://www.imv.uit.no/ommuseet/enheter/zoo/wim/a_e.html

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10598301#post10598301 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
I haven't stopped drinking Bitburger in 4 days. In that time my corals have all doubled in size and "colored up"! ;)

Someone get me an endorsement deal!

haha another misconception---we have been told all along to dose with vodka :lol: and it should have been beer.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10597561#post10597561 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.



There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. <i>Everyone</i> seems to have an expert opinion on <i>everything</i>. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

that probably was true 10-15 years ago. for the following reasons:
there has been new technology that has made keeping a reef tank less problematic and more affordable for a huge amount of hobbyists
the internet has made referencing and linking to information and scientests alot easier.
the internet has allowed the sharing of experiences between hobbyists and scientests.
There has been a successful period of time that has allowed "experience' to be blended with "knowledge" and new concepts tried out.
Sites like this one allow the presentation of alot of points of view and discussion-----and this is how misconceptions are best dealt with.

[thejrc]

the internet has made referencing and linking to information and scientests alot easier.
the internet has allowed the sharing of experiences between hobbyists and scientests.
Sites like this one allow the presentation of alot of points of view and discussion-----and this is how misconceptions are best dealt with.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the tricky part is the commonly large amount of bad information out there online. Anyone can toss up a site or post information regardless of how good or bad it is with this all powerful thing we call the internet. I explain this in my field of work (information technology) to others in comparison to books very easily by noting that publishers will have editors and a lot more at stake to ensure the information the authors hand them to print is accurate, whereas anyone can post in a forum.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. Everyone seems to have an expert opinion on everything. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

Classic case of reader beware on the downside.... anybody can and should be smart enough to compare multiple sources of information before acting, whether it's in this hobby, or any other area. This has always been true in more complex subjects even before the advent of freely available online forums and information.

The gain is immense though and cannot be discounted, not only does the vast majority of average humanity (non researchers, etc) have freeley available access to a plethora of information, we now have a constantly available real time channel where we can share and explore our own personal findings. Thus increasing the speed and area that research covers at lower monetary costs but higher time costs (sorting the information out).

It's a means of collaboration, and yes in any collaborative effort there is always good info and bad, and there is always a ton of grey area. But without collaboration we will never sort out the three areas and final answers would become a crapshoot at best!

just my 2 cents

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10601111#post10601111 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the tricky part is the commonly large amount of bad information out there online. Anyone can toss up a site or post information regardless of how good or bad it is with this all powerful thing we call the internet. I explain this in my field of work (information technology) to others in comparison to books very easily by noting that publishers will have editors and a lot more at stake to ensure the information the authors hand them to print is accurate, whereas anyone can post in a forum.



Classic case of reader beware on the downside.... anybody can and should be smart enough to compare multiple sources of information before acting, whether it's in this hobby, or any other area. This has always been true in more complex subjects even before the advent of freely available online forums and information.

The gain is immense though and cannot be discounted, not only does the vast majority of average humanity (non researchers, etc) have freeley available access to a plethora of information, we now have a constantly available real time channel where we can share and explore our own personal findings. Thus increasing the speed and area that research covers at lower monetary costs but higher time costs (sorting the information out).

It's a means of collaboration, and yes in any collaborative effort there is always good info and bad, and there is always a ton of grey area. But without collaboration we will never sort out the three areas and final answers would become a crapshoot at best!

just my 2 cents

We share the same occupation---I am not stating something new when I state the internet is still rapidly evolving with more people finding a practical use pleasure what ever to motivate them to learn how to use it.
Gone are the days when one reads the symptoms of prostrate cancer on the net and rush to their doctor demanding the 'plastic glove" :)
People learn quickly( and we are teaching them) how to evaluate sites, information etc on the net.
This kind of site makes it very easy to check out the experience they have had, what they have had experience in, and who are their supporters.
situation here: I have been chemistry/biology/math/It teacher for 37 years, have 1200 posts in four months, and have one years experince in reef tanks.
Now Greenbean--(for example--it could have been Bertonli, boomer etc etc ) has had 7,000 posts, many years experince , get many different tanks and is a marine biologist)
Whose answers are you really going to put faith in.:smokin:

Equally, this site provides an excellent communication vehichle where all can discuss their small experinces with experts like we have. any I can't begin to tell you what I have learned today rather then in the past(the old days when the phone was on
the wall instead in your pocket)

IMHO for sure
Scott

[mikekman]

GOOD STUFF guys. This should be a sticky. Keep adding more stuff if possible.

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10599390#post10599390 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
No need to apologize at all, in fact it's interesting to learn where this first misconception came from. And I cant argue that many breakthroughs in our vast "hobby" have been the result of misconceptions or simple hobbyist study! I think the perils lie in everyone taking any particular recommendation or finding to heart and falling for the good ole "expert" flaw. In any field of study there have always been so called "experts" and so called "fiddlers and hobbyists" who have argued and debated! It's interesting to see how the idea of argument and debate, and the levels of experts and fiddlers have both funneled quite a bit to a vast majority of discoveries.

Perhaps someday I'll have a "breakthrough" finding with my copepod cultures, I must say it's one of the reasons why even now I sit here in my garage examining worms that have invaded one of my cultures under a cheap garage sale microscope. But I dont think I will ever be able to claim that I am an expert... as I have way too much to learn about everything. (This is one of the reasons why I like this thread in particular).

On the subject of turbelles and worm drive pumps, since I am working on this tide pool simulation it is one of the things I had never considered and it might just be the answer to what I am trying to acheive. I must point out that even out of context thoughts and comments often lead to great ideas in the context of a field of study.

Since we're all in the process of debunking myths, I must ask.....

has anyone studied amphipods at length enough here to say whether or not they really impact copepod populations through ingestion? (laymans terms, do they eat them all up?).




I'd love to talk to you about your trials but I don't want to clutter this thread into a culture thread :D

FWIW, I agree 100%. I've seen decent sized fish pass right thru Sequence pumps (5800) with no visiable signs of damage.

[bureau13]

Peter is going for two consecutive Thread of the Month awards :D

Question though, about the high pH "myth": You mentioned a pH of up to 8.8 being OK, but at some point high pH can cause Ca to precipitate out of solution. The last time that happened to me (from an overdosing Kalk scenario, I'm hitting two myths for one low price here) I never saw it get higher than about 8.6. I'm pretty sure my Mg was not where it needs to be, which can make it easier for this to happen, but isn't 8.8 getting dangerously close to this level even for proper Mg levels?

jds

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10603477#post10603477 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bureau13
Peter is going for two consecutive Thread of the Month awards :D

Question though, about the high pH "myth": You mentioned a pH of up to 8.8 being OK, but at some point high pH can cause Ca to precipitate out of solution. The last time that happened to me (from an overdosing Kalk scenario, I'm hitting two myths for one low price here) I never saw it get higher than about 8.6. I'm pretty sure my Mg was not where it needs to be, which can make it easier for this to happen, but isn't 8.8 getting dangerously close to this level even for proper Mg levels?

jds

That's a good question and it depends on a lot of factors. I would say that your chances of precipitation are more likely. However, with "normal" temperature, calcium and magnesium levels I don't think it would be a common problem, though some chemistry gurus may disagree. I'd say the problem with the kalkwasser was from the PH being elevated beyond 8.6 or even 8.8 in the area where the kalkwasser was being added. The higher calcium concentration in that area is probably another factor.

However, I should have expanded a little in the first entry that maintaining PH between 8.2-8.6 is probably best even though going a little higher or a little lower will most likely not cause harm. The inspiration for the original entry was people posting on here and wonder what they can do to lower their high PH of 8.4-8.6 as if it was something dangerous.

[thejrc]

I'd love to talk to you about your trials but I don't want to clutter this thread into a culture thread

I've got the copepodgeek.com blog going (when I have time to update) and since I finally got my hands on a good dissection microscope it should have a lot more failed experi.... uh lessons fairly soon here for that. Beauty is now I can actually watch them feed and see what their feeding on, I've made my own recommendations on how to feed and culture pods based on examination of culture growth but I am almost certain I'm going to learn that I too have been guilty of ill advise when I actually see whats happening.

It's fun to know random things, sometimes it's even more fun finding out what you dont know...

[Paul B]

This sounds like fun.
I disagree with everything.
No not really but a few things drive me crazy about this hobby.
I think the most posted thing is what type of animals do I need to get rid of my hair algae problem?
The answer is that no animal will eliminate a hair algae problem.
If it wants to grow, it will grow faster than those few snails will eat it.
People will say that their 1/2" hermit crab or a lettuce nudibranch ate a tank full of it. Not gonna happen. Also there is no such thing as a "Lettuce Nudi" they are slugs and they don't eat hair algae.
Sea hares are another thing. They may eat a little hair algae but they will not clear a tank of the stuff. The hair algae is gone because it died as it does all the time for no apparent reason. Thats why we have so many "cures"
You also can't "cure" it because it is not a disease and it has some benefits.
Greenbean mentioned people saying about cleaner shrimp and fish eliminating ich.
Also not gonna happen. Your ich disappeared for the same reason that hair algae disappeared. It died on it's own as it sometimes does. (personal experience of fifty years +) It also wasen't the garlic, eat it yourself, it's great with linguini and clams.
As to temp changes. I have no chiller, my tank goes to a little over 90 degrees in the summer as it is now. When the lights go off it goes down to the mid eightees. Some of my fish lived to 18 years but only because I diden't let them see the thermometer
:eek1:
UV sterilizers, another pet peeve of mine. They will not cure ich, no way, no how. There is no sign in your tank telling all of those paracites to go into the light. Some may but most of them will just laugh at the thing from the substrait or from their favorite place inside the gills of your favorite fish. They are good at clearing water if you have a diatom bloom or some other one celled nusience problem. They will keep a goldfish pond very clear.
Someone mentioned that a "clean up crew" only lives for a few years. I don't know I think I have some hermit crabs for ten years. I am not really a big fan of clean up crews for the purpose of "cleaning up" but I like them as I like all interesting animals.
There is another one about if you use copper in your tank you can never keep inverts. Wrong.
Never is a long time and although I am older than most of you guys I am not older than "never" and in the beginning of this hobby I kept copper in my tank continousely. Many of those rocks are still in my reef and I diden't notice any residual copper problems. It was a few years after I used copper that I introduced inverts though but I can't say you can "never" use a tank after it has been dosed.
Undergravel filters, my favorite topic. If you use them the correct way, which is in reverse very slowly, they will work forever.
My tank was set up when Nixon was President. That is almost forever.
"Old Tank Syndrome" I don't think that kicks in until at least 37 years. My tank is having problems lately so I think it may be "Old Tank Syndrome" :bum:
Rocks get full of detritus after a few years and don't work for nitrification. I say to that......Ha.
I'm done.
:dance:

[miwoodar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10596596#post10596596 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefer1024


1. Nano tanks will have unstable salinity compared to larger tanks. The rate salinity changes is controlled by 3 things. The amount of surface area in relation to the volume of the system. Temperature and air flow over the waters surface.



Amen brother. I don't know why people think salinity would be less stable in a smaller tank but I hear it all the time. Maybe they assume larger tanks always include an ATO system? Without an ATO system one could argue a larger tank would have high evap rates due to the increased lighting and fans.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10596596#post10596596 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefer1024


In many cases a very large tank will be less stable then a very small one. (I think the same is true for many other things in a nano, but I'm not trying to write a novel here.)



I disagree here though. Dilution is the solution to many problems.

[reefer1024]

Miwoodar: What I'm trying to say is that if you have if you have a nano 1/10th the size of a larger tank and a fish 1/10th the size and feed 1/10th as much food then everything should be equal. If you keep all additions and changes to your nano to scale with the size tank you have there is very little difference between a large and small tank

The only real benefit a larger tank has is that it has more diverse micro organisms, pods and other little critters. These larger breeding populations are much more stable in a larger tank. (all the pods, snails and starfish in my 2.5 pico are inbred.):lol:

[miwoodar]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10611993#post10611993 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefer1024
Wiwoodar: What I'm trying to say is that if you have if you have a nano 1/10th the size of a larger tank and a fish 1/10th the size and feed 1/10th as much food then everything should be equal. If you keep all additions and changes to your nano to scale with the size tank you have there is very little difference between a large and small tank

The only real benefit a larger tank has is that it has more diverse micro organisms and pods and other little critters. These larger breeding populations are much more stable in a larger tank. (all the pods, snails and starfish in my 2.5 pico are inbred.):lol:

It is a good idea but disagree in practice.

IMO nanos are rarely stocked to scale though. I saw a yellow tank in a 12 gallon tank the other day. Nanos usually don't benefit from the additional water volume of a sump or the wide open swimming areas of a larger tank.

[Aquarist007]

UV sterilizers, another pet peeve of mine. They will not cure ich, no way, no how. There is no sign in your tank telling all of those paracites to go into the light. Some may but most of them will just laugh at the thing from the substrait or from their favorite place inside the gills of your favorite fish. They are good at clearing water if you have a diatom bloom or some other one celled nusience problem. They will keep a goldfish pond very clear.
[/B]

I love reading these posts--really makes you think--thank you Paul--also glad there is someone around here that is older then I am :)
Do you feel you need a uv sterilzer if you are running carbon in a phosban reactor?
I took my uv sterilizer off a week ago and have noticed no difference. I just felt it was counterproductive to a refugium in which you are trying to introduce organisms into the water column not reduce them.

[reefer1024]

Can we agree if you fill a nano with small perching gobies that the idea holds true?

[korndogg091]

this is a very helpful thread.

[miwoodar]

reefer1024 - I agree.

[reefer1024]

Yay somebody agrees with me!! This never happens

[Peter Eichler]

Thought this discussion related to the topic so going to link is here.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1189924

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10611761#post10611761 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by miwoodar
Amen brother. I don't know why people think salinity would be less stable in a smaller tank but I hear it all the time. Maybe they assume larger tanks always include an ATO system? Without an ATO system one could argue a larger tank would have high evap rates due to the increased lighting and fans.


Salinity is more likely to be unstable in a smaller tank because of evaporation. Granted, if you have ATO it wouldn't make a difference... but few people with larger tanks don't have a top-off system. Not necessarily a misconception, just a generality with a caveat.

[tonyf]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10591744#post10591744 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
What if the common wisdom is incorrect?

Then it is clearly not wisdom. What is important is that there is a reference point around which to work.

Really, all you need is nothing more than a tub of saltwater (NSW or ASW) in the sun and a paddle to keep the water going around. ROTFLMAO

Tone :D

[C-Water]

Paul B - Thank you. I agree with those points. It's amazing those "LFS theories".

I will add: the use of bleach to clean corals/decorations.

You can use a bleach solution in a bucket to clean corals/decorations. Rinse with running water, dry in the sun and then place it in your tank. I have done hundreds of times and never had a loss (even with delicate species and inverts)

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10614958#post10614958 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
Salinity is more likely to be unstable in a smaller tank because of evaporation. Granted, if you have ATO it wouldn't make a difference... but few people with larger tanks don't have a top-off system. Not necessarily a misconception, just a generality with a caveat.

Not really. My 7g bow evaporates a couple ounces a day. My 72g bow evaporates 3 to 4 gallons a day. The salinity swings way more on the 72 than the 7.

Salinity is directly related to evaporation. The assumption that evaporation % is higher in a smaller tank is flat out false.

[Peter Eichler]

Salinty if NOT measured in numbers such as 1.025, that is specific gravity. Salinity is measured in parts per thousand (ppt) or practical salinity units (psu). If you want to tell us what your salinity it it should look like something in the area of 35 ppt.

[Peter Eichler]

Misconception: Amino Acids are known to be a beneficial supplement to reef aquariums.

The little research that has been done in this area suggests that dosing amino acids might only be beneficial in an aquarium almost devoid of other nitrogen sources, which is not that case with nearly every reef aquarium in existence. Also, it is believed that many corals synthesize their own amino acids, so providing it for them seems a little redundant. It has not even been shown that all corals are capable of absorbing amino acids from the water column, and those that do only do so at very low rates. Lastly it's quite possible, considering the slow uptake of amino acids by corals, that a protein skimmer and tiny organisms would eliminate a large percentage of any dosed amino acids.

Every time you feed your tank you're essentially dosing with amino acids, you're just doing so in a way that we know many of our corals can utilize.

Conclusion: This one could apply to a lot of additives that have at one time been popular. Things such as Iodine, Molybdenum, Strontium, Iron, Mixed Trace Elements, and a wide variety of mystery all encompassing supplements. When it comes down to it amino acids nor any of the afformentioned supplements are needed in order to have a spectacular reef aquarium. The chances of them making a tiny bit of difference is certainly possible. However, the risk of that difference being against you rather than in your favor seems to suggest it's best to keep things simple and rely on good old waterchanges and food.

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10616012#post10616012 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Not really. My 7g bow evaporates a couple ounces a day. My 72g bow evaporates 3 to 4 gallons a day. The salinity swings way more on the 72 than the 7.

Salinity is directly related to evaporation. The assumption that evaporation % is higher in a smaller tank is flat out false.

I think you misunderstood - I'm not saying evaporation rates are higher in small tanks. However, there are a lot of factors that affect that such as surface turbidity, surface area, flow, temp, cover type, lights, etc. It makes sense that the 72 evaporates more based on all those factors... you probably have a sump which adds to the surface area also.

If your 7g bow evaporates a couple of ounces a day that means that you only have to replace a gallon of water from evaporation every 64 days. Even 5 ounces a day means you replace a gallon of water every 25 day. That's pretty low...

Anyway, my point was that relative to large tanks, small tanks seem to be affected greater by evaporation. I also said smaller tanks don't <i>normally</i> have ATO. This means that top-off relies on the owner and naturally more variation occurs (sometimes I go a couple of weeks w/o topping off my nano). The same thing can occur in large tanks w/o ATO but for example the section of my sump where the water level goes down can't get low enough to affect salinity at all in my big tank. 3 gallons (2.3% tank volume) of evaporation isn't going to make a measurable change with 130 gallons of water. However if I let 1 gallon (8.3% tank volume) of water evaporate from my nano that's almost 4 times percentage of the large tank.

Yeah if you have ATO on the nano OR replace the exact same amount of water every day at the same time the variation will be unmeasurable. It might seem salinity is more affected in small tanks due to evaporation but it's just a product of the top-off method and discipline of the tank owner. Maybe it's a "misconception" but in reality that's probably how it is in the majority.

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10623926#post10623926 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder

Anyway, my point was that relative to large tanks, small tanks seem to be affected greater by evaporation.

I know thats what you meant, and I disagree.


One thing to note, is that salinity DOES swing rapidly on the wild reef, so this whole argument may be entirely silly

[davidryder]

Oh oh oh I have one:

Misconception: You need the reef central search function to find info on a thread that has already been posted 1,001 times.

There is a very easy way to search reef central. At google.com if you type in "algae problems site:reefcentral.com" it will return results from RC only. Even searching for "algae problems saltwater" will give you all the information you ever needed.

Conclusion: while it is convenient to use "the search function doesn't work" cop-out, it is a flat out misconception.

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10623991#post10623991 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
Oh oh oh I have one:

Misconception: You need the reef central search function to find info on a thread that has already been posted 1,001 times.

There is a very easy way to search reef central. At google.com if you type in "algae problems site:reefcentral.com" it will return results from RC only. Even searching for "algae problems saltwater" will give you all the information you ever needed.

Conclusion: while it is convenient to use "the search function doesn't work" cop-out, it is a flat out misconception.

Brilliant :) I'm glad you added that to this list. I just wish more would search for the info rather then waiting for some one else to do the leg, er, keyboard work :lol:

[Aquarist007]

I second that---absolutely a great tip--oops gotta go and try this one out :)

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10622735#post10622735 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Also, it is believed that many corals synthesize their own amino acids, so providing it for them seems a little redundant. It has not even been shown that all corals are capable of absorbing amino acids from the water column, and those that do only do so at very low rates. Lastly it's quite possible, considering the slow uptake of amino acids by corals, that a protein skimmer and tiny organisms would eliminate a large percentage of any dosed amino acids.
You know, I'm normally not a big fan of amino-dosing, but I think you're missing a bit here.

First off, it has been shown that quite a few corals can uptake various aminos via studies ... and few such abilities in nature exist [or are kept around] if of no benefit to the organism. They're not doing it to expend energy - while you are correct that quite a few aminos can be synthesized by corals, I don't think it's been proven that all are. And, if I remember that study right, not all corals did this to the same extent. [some probably have more external demand than others]

You're right that perhaps most might first be consumed by bacteria [IMO probably the #1 consumer of aminos in most aquaria] .... but that ignores the fact that bacterial detritus/bacteria can significantly contribute to the diet of our corals - which could be considered to be `gut loaded' with aminos, the same as we do for many of our foods.

And, it sure seems like it has be conclusively shown that many corals can uptake aminos. Has it been conclusively shown in a scientific study that they consume and utilize cyclops-eeze or other aquarium-market foods?

Just throwing it out there

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10625374#post10625374 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
You know, I'm normally not a big fan of amino-dosing, but I think you're missing a bit here.

First off, it has been shown that quite a few corals can uptake various aminos via studies ... and few such abilities in nature exist [or are kept around] if of no benefit to the organism. They're not doing it to expend energy - while you are correct that quite a few aminos can be synthesized by corals, I don't think it's been proven that all are. And, if I remember that study right, not all corals did this to the same extent. [some probably have more external demand than others]

Mark, but none of the studies have any way of discerning whether or not theyre uptaking them as aminos, or breaking them down first.

IE, theres no way to tell whether or not theyre any different than just fish food.

[RichConley]

Heres another myth:


Freshly hatchd brine shrimp Nauplii should be enriched/gutloaded with phyto and selcon.


They dont even develope a mouth until the instar II stage, which doesnt occur until 36 hours after feeding.

[cayars]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10596238#post10596238 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
cayars, Do you have any pics of your system? Sounds really interesting.

http://www.saltylivestock.com

Just started working on it the other day. I need to finish populating my fish (about 2/3 done) and need to put some more pics up including all my corals)

Carlo

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10625374#post10625374 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
You know, I'm normally not a big fan of amino-dosing, but I think you're missing a bit here.

First off, it has been shown that quite a few corals can uptake various aminos via studies ... and few such abilities in nature exist [or are kept around] if of no benefit to the organism. They're not doing it to expend energy - while you are correct that quite a few aminos can be synthesized by corals, I don't think it's been proven that all are. And, if I remember that study right, not all corals did this to the same extent. [some probably have more external demand than others]

You're right that perhaps most might first be consumed by bacteria [IMO probably the #1 consumer of aminos in most aquaria] .... but that ignores the fact that bacterial detritus/bacteria can significantly contribute to the diet of our corals - which could be considered to be `gut loaded' with aminos, the same as we do for many of our foods.

And, it sure seems like it has be conclusively shown that many corals can uptake aminos. Has it been conclusively shown in a scientific study that they consume and utilize cyclops-eeze or other aquarium-market foods?

Just throwing it out there

You say many corals can uptake amino acids, I say we don't fully know what corals can and can't. I guess the wording on that one just depends on what side you want to argue for ;) Perhaps it hasn't been proven that all amino acids can be synthesized by corals, I don't ever expect it to be because I HIGHLY doubt they can. Mainly because the studies that I've seen suggest that a limited amount of amino acids appear to be of benefit.

There are a lot of things that can be consumed by bacteria, such as ammonium. It has been shown that the uptake of ammonium greatly outpaces amino acids as a nitrogen source for corals and that the even in areas with the highest concentration of amino acids those amino acids were only shown to contribute a very small percentage of the nitrogen demand of the corals. Seems like peeing in our aquariums would be of more benefit to our corals than dosing amino acids. However, I wouldn't suggest dosing urine or amino acids ;)

Even if there has been no scientific study showing that certain corals utilize cyclopeeze it seems even if they don't that the breakdown of various foods in the aquarium would provide more nutrition than an expensive bottle of fancy amino acids.

[miwoodar]

myth - You can learn everything you need to know on a website.

RC is fantastic. The web in general is fantastic. However, thread chatter is not a complete body of information. It's good to supplement with books and articles from well respected authors. Sprung, Delbeek, Tullock, Riddle, Borneman, Theil, Adey, Paletta, Fenner, Calfo, Moe, where to stop?

I know people who have been reefing for a very long time that wouldn't even recognize a single name on this list. Reading the authors who started the discussions that we continue to chat about on a daily basis would not only help our personal pursuits as reefers but also the entire reefing community on the whole.

[HBtank]

Calfo? You're telling me an overflow wrote a book?

[miwoodar]

The overflow actually didn't write anything. The co-author wrote it all!

[amphirion]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582567#post10582567 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Our hobby is a very very real threat to reefs. The Philippines are a perfect example of this. Our hobby is certainly not the only factor that contributed to the destruction of the reefs there, but it's was a significant factor. Thing is, collection of corals isn't nearly as destructive to reefs as improper fish collection is.


Once there was this question "Fish Rap" in Aquarium Fish Magasine that was: What is the responsability of the reefkeeping hobby towards natural coral reefs? I answered that question and my answer did appear in the February 2007 edition of the Aquarium Fish Magasine.

What I think is that our hobby isn't that much of a pain for coral reefs because I'm sure that in a few years species that are gone in the sea because of weather changes or overfishing will still thrive in our tanks because we can control temperature, flow, predation and water quality and these are some things that can we can't control in nature. Some species will be saved from extinction because some people decided to take a few specimens from the reefs and to keep them in aquariums. That's the way I see it. ;)


And I really wanted to say something else.. Another myth: You have to quarantine EVERYTHING before putting into your main tank.

Well, I never quarantined any fish invertebrate or coral before putting into the main tank and I never saw an animal die because of that. That is the same case for all my friends. The thing to remember is to buy only healthy specimems that eats in front of your eyes at the fish store. And you should not buy a fish that just arrived at the lfs. Wait one week, them come to see it; if it's a fat healthy fish that eats and is disease free, I personally don't see the need to quarantine such fish. A one hour acclimatation to my tank has always been successful for any coral, fish or invertebrate.

What I just said on quarantine doesn't apply on fish that you buy online. These should be quarantined until you are sure they are disease free and are eating prior adding them to your display.

My 2 cents :)

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10626749#post10626749 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by amphirion
Once there was this question "Fish Rap" in Aquarium Fish Magasine that was: What is the responsability of the reefkeeping hobby towards natural coral reefs? I answered that question and my answer did appear in the February 2007 edition of the Aquarium Fish Magasine.

What I think is that our hobby isn't that much of a pain for coral reefs because I'm sure that in a few years species that are gone in the sea because of weather changes or overfishing will still thrive in our tanks because we can control temperature, flow, predation and water quality and these are some things that can we can't control in nature. Some species will be saved from extinction because some people decided to take a few specimens from the reefs and to keep them in aquariums. That's the way I see it. ;)


And I really wanted to say something else.. Another myth: You have to quarantine EVERYTHING before putting into your main tank.

Well, I never quarantined any fish invertebrate or coral before putting into the main tank and I never saw an animal die because of that. That is the same case for all my friends. The thing to remember is to buy only healthy specimems that eats in front of your eyes at the fish store. And you should not buy a fish that just arrived at the lfs. Wait one week, them come to see it; if it's a fat healthy fish that eats and is disease free, I personally don't see the need to quarantine such fish. A one hour acclimatation to my tank has always been successful for any coral, fish or invertebrate.

What I just said on quarantine doesn't apply on fish that you buy online. These should be quarantined until you are sure they are disease free and are eating prior adding them to your display.

My 2 cents :)

I don't think anyone has ever said you have to quarantine everything, but you really should. Maybe you've been lucky, maybe many people you know have been lucky, but countless pests, diseases, algaes, etc. have been added to display aquariums that could have been prevented by a simple quarantine tank. That said I've never been real big on quarantine tanks for myself, and I usually get lucky, but I know I should be quarantining everything. Just because a coral or a fish appears halethy and is eating does not mean it can't intriduce something nasty to a display tank.

As to the destruction of corals reefs as a result of the aquarium hobby, it's an undeniable fact that it has happened and is happening. Like I said, there are many factors and causes besides our hobby, and perhaps certain corals would go extinct without any interference from humans. Perhaps some of those corals will still exist in aquariums for years to come. However, I don't see that as any justification for the destruction this hobby has caused.

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10626302#post10626302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
You say many corals can uptake amino acids, I say we don't fully know what corals can and can't.
Frankly, I think this makes quite evident a major weakness of a thread like this.

We don't have the specialists and those with great knowledge on this subject - and when making sweeping generalizations about the efficacy of methods, IMO ignoring those who have detailed knowledge of subjects seriously weakens any discussion.

I'd seriously suggest having this exact discussion with mcsaxmaster, mesocosm, and some other highly studied folks as IME they'd likely disagree with your statements as well.

In the end, you're mixing opinion and study without discrimination IMO - with opinions being valued as highly as published articles by scientists in the field.

Given radio-labeled aminos were found in the corals, and given the marine biologists I've spoken with suggest that they are being taken in by the corals .... I just don't see why hobbyist opinions on whether this happens or not are relevant.

JMO, though.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10627037#post10627037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Frankly, I think this makes quite evident a major weakness of a thread like this.

We don't have the specialists and those with great knowledge on this subject - and when making sweeping generalizations about the efficacy of methods, IMO ignoring those who have detailed knowledge of subjects seriously weakens any discussion.

I'd seriously suggest having this exact discussion with mcsaxmaster, mesocosm, and some other highly studied folks as IME they'd likely disagree with your statements as well.

In the end, you're mixing opinion and study without discrimination IMO - with opinions being valued as highly as published articles by scientists in the field.

Given radio-labeled aminos were found in the corals, and given the marine biologists I've spoken with suggest that they are being taken in by the corals .... I just don't see why hobbyist opinions on whether this happens or not are relevant.

JMO, though.

I can see your point----but I "assumed" when Peter started this thread that it was going to be kept to simpler misconceptions--obviously not for the newbie but kind of like the middle experienced--in my own case it has taken time to develop such misguided misconceptions :)
This thread from about page 5 on might be better in the advanced forum where it might attract more of the writers that you would deem experts or worthy of discussing these concepts at a level acceptable to your wisdom and expertise?

I personally get enjoyment out all this---I think it is great---but I don't think all do--its becoming too technical for the middle experienced ---and doesn't have enough participation by experts to attract more experts.

Also speaking from a vary narrow scheme of things at this point in the hobby-----Guys like boomer and Bartaloni---they mentored with one of the greatest in the hobby Randy Holmes---don't you feel they are worthy of discussing at your level?
I am not insuating that you feel you are better then the rest of us---but in reality you are more experienced and knowledgeable--its reality and that's life--so my post is noway considered a criticism
the bottom line is I hope this thread goes back to basics more so I can actively participate---this is how I learn the best.
In awe of the fantastic knowledgable experienced people at Reef Escape
Sincerely
Scott

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10627037#post10627037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Frankly, I think this makes quite evident a major weakness of a thread like this.

We don't have the specialists and those with great knowledge on this subject - and when making sweeping generalizations about the efficacy of methods, IMO ignoring those who have detailed knowledge of subjects seriously weakens any discussion.

I'd seriously suggest having this exact discussion with mcsaxmaster, mesocosm, and some other highly studied folks as IME they'd likely disagree with your statements as well.

In the end, you're mixing opinion and study without discrimination IMO - with opinions being valued as highly as published articles by scientists in the field.

Given radio-labeled aminos were found in the corals, and given the marine biologists I've spoken with suggest that they are being taken in by the corals .... I just don't see why hobbyist opinions on whether this happens or not are relevant.

JMO, though.

My point with the statement you quoted is that we know some corals uptake amino acids, we know some don't, and we even know others produce amino acids. I don't know where you're coming from with saying I'm ignoring people with detailed knowledge of a subject. I don't see where that has been the case with this. The two guys you mentioned are more than welcome to join in on the discussion whoevere they are. I'd love to see the info they have that shows the great benefits of dosing amino acids as opposed to just supplying those amino acids through a food source.

I feel the ones that are mixing opinion and study and making the broad sweeping generalizations are the ones that are strongly promoting the use if amino acids. Simply because some (even most) corals have been shown to be capable of taking in amino acids from the water column does not mean we should be dumping them in our tank. We know so little about how much dosing amino acids would benefit a tank, we know that it's by no means a necessary thing to do, and it appears that uptake of amino acids from the water is a rather insignificant part of coral nutrition. So I don't see the harm in what you're considering a broad sweeping generalization. I'd like to add that at no point did I say people absolutely shouldn't add amino acids to their aquarium. Until someone comes out with studies that contradicts those done so far it appears that aquarium companies offering amino acids are doing nothing more than twisting scientific literature around and cashing in on the latest fad additive. Hey, something has to make up for the drop in sales from molybdenum, iodine, and strontium supplements ;)

P.S. Let me state again, not once did I dispute that many corals are capable of taking in amino acids. Not all are capable, many are, and we simply don't know with various species that have not been studied.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10627277#post10627277 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur

the bottom line is I hope this thread goes back to basics more so I can actively participate---this is how I learn the best.


Well, lets throttle it back a litle then :)

Misconception: Acropora is pronounced ack-row-poor-uh or something close to it.

The proper pronunciation is closer to ah-crop-O-ruh. This one is so common in the hobby that I've stopped pronouncing it properly when I talk to most hobbyists. I got tired of people looking at me like I was some sort of idiot for not knowing how to say Acropora :p

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10627037#post10627037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark

In the end, you're mixing opinion and study without discrimination IMO
I would have to agree.......unfortunately this thread has denigrated to the point that almost as much misconception is being spouted as is being disputed:p

It's just another "who do you believe" for those that are in the early learning stages.

JMO, Chris

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10628577#post10628577 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Well, lets throttle it back a litle then :)

Misconception: Acropora is pronounced ack-row-poor-uh or something close to it.

The proper pronunciation is closer to ah-crop-O-ruh. This one is so common in the hobby that I've stopped pronouncing it properly when I talk to most hobbyists. I got tired of people looking at me like I was some sort of idiot for not knowing how to say Acropora :p

ha ha---comeone Peter I was actually defending you and other experts on this site-----and defending the half experienced half knowledge people like my self on this site--just like us baby boomers we are getting old but we are staying in full use of our brain powers-----so we still can recognize when someone is patonizing us:(
IMO---learning the correct way to pronounce acropora is going to enhance my ability as a reef keeper by ?
Then I coudl be reading the post to serious ---I apologize if I have--life's to short to not laugh:rollface:

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10629080#post10629080 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
ha ha---comeone Peter I was actually defending you and other experts on this site-----and defending the half experienced half knowledge people like my self on this site--just like us baby boomers we are getting old but we are staying in full use of our brain powers-----so we still can recognize when someone is patonizing us:(
IMO---learning the correct way to pronounce acropora is going to enhance my ability as a reef keeper by ?
Then I coudl be reading the post to serious ---I apologize if I have--life's to short to not laugh:rollface:

I know you were defending me and what I posted was not meant to be patronizing in the least. I was just trying to get back on the track of discussing things that are a little more common and less off the beaten path. I admit, not all that useful, but something I thought might be interesting to some. There are still a ton of things I say improperly so I'm hardly making fun of anyone. When you read something in a book or online over and over again and never hear anyone say it you form your own idea of how it should sound. Even after you learn you've been saying something wrong it's hard to break the habit of saying things the old way.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10628972#post10628972 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
I would have to agree.......unfortunately this thread has denigrated to the point that almost as much misconception is being spouted as is being disputed:p

It's just another "who do you believe" for those that are in the early learning stages.

JMO, Chris

Easy to say, especially without specific references as to what misconceptions you think we're 'spouting'. Sure, this thread is about pointing out misconceptions, but it's also about debate and better understanding. So, jump in the mix, lets hear what you have a problem with...

By the way, I think you mean degenerated since you're denigrating this thread.

[davidryder]

:lol: This thread is fun!!!

[mbbuna]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10627037#post10627037 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark


I'd seriously suggest having this exact discussion with mcsaxmaster, mesocosm, and some other highly studied folks as IME they'd likely disagree with your statements as well.



http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=8671212&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10579251#post10579251 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler

3.) 75-77 degrees is a good temperature for a reef tank or tropical fish only tank.

The majority of our corals come from corals and fish come from waters that range in temperature anywhere from 76-90 degrees with average temps in the low 80's. There are certainly creatures that are an exception such as those from Japan, Australia, and deeper waters which are more usesd to temperatures a little lower.

Conclusion: The old magic 76 degree mark has little merit and I'm not sure how it ever came to be in the first place. Maintaining temperatures in the low 80's is probably most natural and will suit most fish/coral available in the industry. Thankfully this has become more accepted in recent years.


Peter I got mad love for ya but somehow I always seem to find the "exception" to the rule in your threads.

I keep my reef heater set at 78F in the summer it stays around 80 in the winter right about 78. However much like you stated that zoo's and SPS have different requirements, not all tropical marine fish will do well at a temp of 80f.

Take seahorses for example. While they can live at 80F long term keepers have reported much better long term success keeping at temps below 74F. The reason being is the affects from certain bacteria's (mainly vibrio related). The bacteria's become more virtulent at higher temperatures and actually release different proteins then they do at the lower temperatures. Keeping a tank at 74 F or below helps stop the reproduction of the more aggresive bacteria, while keeping the temp at 69F actualy stops the bacteria growth completely. Much of these finding come from Dr. Belli and can be found in the book Working Notes, 2006. Noga also has similiar findings, but I can't afford his book.

While seahorses in the wild can survive and thrive at much higher temperatures do to dillution, the same is not so in a closed system.

JME

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10579803#post10579803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
I just keep thinking of more and more. :)

12.) Mariculture and aquaculture are different methods of farming corals.

Aquaculture is underwater agriculture. Mariculture is simply marine aquaculture. In the context of the hobby, since all of our animals are marine, they are synonyms. Neither one implies anything about the culture method used or where it's done.


IME mariculture has always been used to descibe culturing animals in the ocean, while aquaculture is used to describe culturing animals in a closed system, like a tank.

There have been great differences in the animals produced in these two very different types of culturing methods IME.



13.) Trading frags helps save the reefs.

Reducing the demand for wild corals may help some, but it won't make a very big dent in the amount of corals being taken from the reef. As large as it has gotten, the live coral trade is still small compared to other uses for the reef such as construction. Regardless of the demand from the hobby, there will always be more demand for corals than supply and the collectors will always need jobs. To truly reduce the amount of corals being taken, economic alternatives to harvesting from the reef have to be offered and simply cutting our demand doesn't do that. Eco-tourism and responsible aquaculture are two possibilities.

It's a start. It's what we can do. No coral in my tank came directly from the ocean, it all came as frags from a fellow reefers or stores tank. I am not the only person I know like this. The more we learn, the better we can continue this. I also by CB fish whenever available and contribute to the CB fish market myslef.

[davidryder]

I thought seahorses had completely different temp requirements than reef species...

[happyface888]

Wow this is a interesting thread, My reefer sense's are tingaling....."another thread of the month: :D

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10592314#post10592314 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur

Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.


Yet every large scale facility whose systems I know use one. From public aquariums to large scale breeders.

Funny huh.

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10593994#post10593994 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.

If your saying high temps don't matter, then why do you have fans to cool the temps? Your post is contradicting itself.

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10595427#post10595427 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
Your sterilizer was running in line after your refugium, reducing the effectiveness of the fuge.

UV sterilizers have different flow rates intentioanlly. There is a flow rate for bacteria and a flow rate for parasites and other small organisms. The higher flow rate for bacteria will not kill small crusteceans. It is a myth. That is exactly why there are two diffrent flow rates on the box, it's not just for looks.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10629998#post10629998 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
Peter I got mad love for ya but somehow I always seem to find the "exception" to the rule in your threads.

I keep my reef heater set at 78F in the summer it stays around 80 in the winter right about 78. However much like you stated that zoo's and SPS have different requirements, not all tropical marine fish will do well at a temp of 80f.

Take seahorses for example. While they can live at 80F long term keepers have reported much better long term success keeping at temps below 74F. The reason being is the affects from certain bacteria's (mainly vibrio related). The bacteria's become more virtulent at higher temperatures and actually release different proteins then they do at the lower temperatures. Keeping a tank at 74 F or below helps stop the reproduction of the more aggresive bacteria, while keeping the temp at 69F actualy stops the bacteria growth completely. Much of these finding come from Dr. Belli and can be found in the book Working Notes, 2006. Noga also has similiar findings, but I can't afford his book.

While seahorses in the wild can survive and thrive at much higher temperatures do to dillution, the same is not so in a closed system.

JME

Like I said, it's not a hard and fast rule and there are exceptions. I don't know a ton about Seahorses so I'm not going to argue for or against what you're saying :) In short, I think it's pretty tough to argue my conclusion that most of the organisms in the average reef tank (typical clean up crews aside :lol: ) come from warmer water than what people were commonly maintaining their reef tanks at for many years.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630012#post10630012 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
IME mariculture has always been used to descibe culturing animals in the ocean, while aquaculture is used to describe culturing animals in a closed system, like a tank.

There have been great differences in the animals produced in these two very different types of culturing methods IME.




It's a start. It's what we can do. No coral in my tank came directly from the ocean, it all came as frags from a fellow reefers or stores tank. I am not the only person I know like this. The more we learn, the better we can continue this. I also by CB fish whenever available and contribute to the CB fish market myslef.

The hobby has certainly started placing a differentiation between maricultured and aquacultured corals. I'm on the fence with this one and I've started using the terms in situ and ex situ more often. However, I'm probably saying them wrong :p

As for aquacultered corals, even if it doesn't help much it helps some in relation to the demand out hobby is putting on natural reefs and that's not something to disregard. Perhaps if we collect less corals for the hobby collectors will just collect more or the same amount of another industry such as the curio trade. However, I'd rather this hobby be less of the cause for the woes that natural reefs face rather than more.

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630014#post10630014 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
I thought seahorses had completely different temp requirements than reef species...

Many species of seahorses live on the reefs. ;) They would be a reef species then no?

[pledosophy]

Time for my own "misconceptions"

Number 30 ish or so

Margarita snails are good for clean up crew.

Actually they are a temperate animla that slowly cooks in our systems. They are harvested from tropical regions, however the are found at lower dpeths most often and can live for over a hundred years in a cooler climate. IMO they have no buisness in a reef system. JMO

[pledosophy]

31 or so

Base rock will become liverock in a few months

I say myth busted.

The anaerobic bacteria that is housed within tradition live rock will take years and even decades to grow in base rock. The anaerobes don't like oxygen and are not often found floating in the water column so they have no way of entering the rock which is quickly covered by the aerobic bacteria. I never believed this myself, even after I read the study, until i cracked open a piece of base rock that was in my tank for a bit over 5 years to find it void of anearobic bacteria as compared to a piece of rock that was imported with a coral attached which had a large population of the bacteria.
JME

[pledosophy]

Taxifolia is a great species of macro to be used by aquaqrists for nutrient export

The species is so invasive it has been banned in many states and many countries since it has been shown to grow so fast it completely decimates ecosystems. Large harbors have ahd to be closed for clean up due to someone's improper disposal of the "algae".

IT can live in fresh water, it can be completely dried, a mm can grow to 3" in a day in the ocean. It is best left alone.

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630142#post10630142 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
31 or so

Base rock will become liverock in a few months

I say myth busted.

The anaerobic bacteria that is housed within tradition live rock will take years and even decades to grow in base rock. The anaerobes don't like oxygen and are not often found floating in the water column so they have no way of entering the rock which is quickly covered by the aerobic bacteria. I never believed this myself, even after I read the study, until i cracked open a piece of base rock that was in my tank for a bit over 5 years to find it void of anearobic bacteria as compared to a piece of rock that was imported with a coral attached which had a large population of the bacteria.
JME

This reminds me of a myth that I was going to post when I started this thread, but I decided not to post it due to a small sample to draw info from.

It would have looked something like this...

There is a core in live rock that contains large amounts of anaerobic bacteria.

While it's quite probable there are small zones within live rock that are capable of removing nitrates I have never seen a live rock that once cut open or broken has such a core. No signs of a large presence of denitrifying bacteria what so ever. On the flipside I've broken off small pieces of rock closer to the outside surface to find indicators of the presence of denitrification taking place.

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10629987#post10629987 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mbbuna
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=8671212&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
:thumbsup: Certainly a lot of discussion ontthe subject, great link!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10627277#post10627277 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
This thread from about page 5 on might be better in the advanced forum where it might attract more of the writers that you would deem experts or worthy of discussing these concepts at a level acceptable to your wisdom and expertise?
Great points, Scott.

I'm not putting myself as among the experts like Randy + others ... just am suggesting that topics like this that are highly debateable perhaps should not be casually dismissed as a `common misperception'.

IMO, if the jury is still out, as it is with aminos as I've seen ---- then we perhaps should not list it as an easily dismissed misconception.

JMO, but compared to something like the use of Caluerpa taxifolia [which has some serious known issues, and can easily be substituted by another less problematic species for algae-based-export] ... I would not call this as a similar misconception, as it is [IMO] in no ways as clear cut and decided.

Anyway, I'll shut up now ;)

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630014#post10630014 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
I thought seahorses had completely different temp requirements than reef species...
I think some seahorses have different requirements than other seahorses.

I'm sure you're right that quite a few originate in cooler than reef waters - but I also know I've seen seahorses diving on reefs in Bonaire .... in lovely 82 degree water.

I think that seahorses might be too variable in their natural location to make a sweeping temperature generalization, as the variance between species is significant.

[Paul B]

Fot the record I would like to say that I have no idea what AC-RO-PORA does with amino acids. As to seahorses I collect them all the time here in New York. The water in winter goes down to the lower fortees.
Have fun.
Paul

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10629601#post10629601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
I know you were defending me and what I posted was not meant to be patronizing in the least. I was just trying to get back on the track of discussing things that are a little more common and less off the beaten path. I admit, not all that useful, but something I thought might be interesting to some. There are still a ton of things I say improperly so I'm hardly making fun of anyone. When you read something in a book or online over and over again and never hear anyone say it you form your own idea of how it should sound. Even after you learn you've been saying something wrong it's hard to break the habit of saying things the old way.

That's what I thought---- after 18 hrs on the computer--I should have known when to call it a day.
bottom line--the moderators on this site rock.:smokin:

Another myth or controversy at least
pH
Mainstream thinking is that the level of carbon dioxide in the water causes the fluctuations in pH--that's kind of a given.
The controversy or delima is how much the lowering or raising of it makes a difference to the inhabitants in the reef tank.
There have been so many posts lately--mine included :) where we start to worry when the pH gets under 7.8 (nocturnally) and whether we should make adjustments according to other parameters in the tank aka alkalinity. Some feel just to leave it alone and let it rise and fall with the carbon dioxide levels in the house etc. others feel you have to act on it and use everything from kalk drips to what ever to get it up to 8.2
so what are the real facts here?

[thejrc]

well I'd say we look at the effects of Alk, magnesium, and carbon dioxide on PH as a whole

Like any other balancing act where multiple "puzzle peices" fit together to create the big picture it's easy for everyone to have their own experience in what worked and didnt when controlling PH. With so many factors involved even something as simple as top off water can all of a sudden change things if the amount is considerable.

We know the goal is to avoid large swings in PH while small swings vs. stable is yet to be proven either way. we know there's a target range and consistent elevation or drop beyond that range for long periods of time seems to be detrimental but even this could use some more study.

So why not stop and restart at the beginning? We know what seawater averages, and we know many of the fluctuations at many reef areas. if we use these levels as our constraints and figure out exactly how all of the aspects involved affect PH as a whole (light, co2, alk, etc) we might be better off in making real recommendations on how to keep it in check? and what levels are really our target.

The most interesting one I find funny is that most people assume PH levels, temp, etc. and make recommendations of such without even so much as asking what kind of environment is in the tank. Not all of our corals come from the same waters, and the introduction of aquacultured corals brings a whole new angle to the base of what we can get away with as some have simply adapted.

A lot of study still in order I suppose!

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10631917#post10631917 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
well I'd say we look at the effects of Alk, magnesium, and carbon dioxide on PH as a whole

Like any other balancing act where multiple "puzzle peices" fit together to create the big picture it's easy for everyone to have their own experience in what worked and didnt when controlling PH. With so many factors involved even something as simple as top off water can all of a sudden change things if the amount is considerable.

We know the goal is to avoid large swings in PH while small swings vs. stable is yet to be proven either way. we know there's a target range and consistent elevation or drop beyond that range for long periods of time seems to be detrimental but even this could use some more study.

So why not stop and restart at the beginning? We know what seawater averages, and we know many of the fluctuations at many reef areas. if we use these levels as our constraints and figure out exactly how all of the aspects involved affect PH as a whole (light, co2, alk, etc) we might be better off in making real recommendations on how to keep it in check? and what levels are really our target.

The most interesting one I find funny is that most people assume PH levels, temp, etc. and make recommendations of such without even so much as asking what kind of environment is in the tank. Not all of our corals come from the same waters, and the introduction of aquacultured corals brings a whole new angle to the base of what we can get away with as some have simply adapted.

A lot of study still in order I suppose!

good point--lets start at the beginning----direct observation
There must be some common signs to look for with pH levels that are outside the "established normal range" so one can judge if chemcial action should be taken.
eg in my case I have a real delima right now--the nocturnal shift in pH went as low as 7.7 last night and presently 7.84 with alk remaining constant at 10.6.
I am familar with the ways to rise this without alk rising or raising both etc etc.
but...........
I don't know if I should be doing anything about it because over the last month with this occuring at a regular basis my tank water has never looked better and my corals have come alive more than ever?

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630454#post10630454 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
Fot the record I would like to say that I have no idea what AC-RO-PORA does with amino acids. As to seahorses I collect them all the time here in New York. The water in winter goes down to the lower fortees.
Have fun.
Paul

that's because you are pronouncing it wrong :rollface: ;) :lol:

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630427#post10630427 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark

Anyway, I'll shut up now ;) [/B]

Please promise the half baked half experienced that you will never to that ---then the learning will stop for sure:eek1:

[Aquarist007]

do you think I might have coined a comparison of experienced here--or is it misconception?

fresh waiting to rise--- aka newbie

half baked-----experienced enough to foster lots of misconceptions.

"risen" to idolship aka moderator or 10,000 or more posts :)

[virginiadiver69]

I have heard to many times that a Diamond Goby "will decimate your sand bed of all life". I have observed mine keep the top 1/2" cleaned and turned over but unless he gets into the bed any further than that I do not see how this is possible.

[greenbean36191]

IME mariculture has always been used to descibe culturing animals in the ocean, while aquaculture is used to describe culturing animals in a closed system, like a tank.

There have been great differences in the animals produced in these two very different types of culturing methods IME.
Regardless of how they've been used in the hobby, mariculture and aquaculture aren't different methods. That was the point of stating the misconception.

UV sterilizers have different flow rates intentioanlly. There is a flow rate for bacteria and a flow rate for parasites and other small organisms. The higher flow rate for bacteria will not kill small crusteceans. It is a myth. That is exactly why there are two diffrent flow rates on the box, it's not just for looks.
I was never arguing that the flow rate for killing bacteria will kill copepods. Keep in mind, those flow rates on the box are for complete kills, not sterilization. Even at higher flow rates, you get sublethal damage to DNA of anything that passes through. If you're only using the refugium as a direct source of food that's fine. Even dead "pods" still make good fish food. Most people's refugiums are pretty small though and it's not likely that they're producing enough pods to be a significant food source for the main tank. Mostly they're a source to constantly reinvigorate the population in the main tank. That doesn't work very well though if your brood stock or the egg carrying females are being sterilized before they make it to the tank.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632094#post10632094 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I have heard to many times that a Diamond Goby "will decimate your sand bed of all life". I have observed mine keep the top 1/2" cleaned and turned over but unless he gets into the bed any further than that I do not see how this is possible.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the advice? Proponents of deep sand beds who advise against keeping sand bed infaunal predators, such as sand-sifting fish and sand-shifting sea stars, do so because the removal of the infauna in the top layer of the sand bed has a domino effect on the entire infaunal chain from top to bottom by upsetting the natural order of things. Predation by such animals can be tolerated in really large sand beds (>500-gal tanks) but not in average size sand beds.

If your goal is to maintain a self-sufficient, deep sand bed (>4" depth) with a diverse population of infauna, it is best to avoid animals that eat this infauna. If you have other goals, then none of this applies to you.

:D

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10629670#post10629670 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
Easy to say, especially without specific references as to what misconceptions you think we're 'spouting'. Sure, this thread is about pointing out misconceptions, but it's also about debate and better understanding. So, jump in the mix, lets hear what you have a problem with...

By the way, I think you mean degenerated since you're denigrating this thread.

My main point was that, just like what is being disputed, a good bit of what is written in this thread is also opinion. I agree that most of the "myths" being discounted are incorrect but some not so much and that's also just my opinion.

So in short IMO it would be good for anyone that's reading this that doesn't have a good understanding of what is being discussed to take a good bit of this with a grain of salt.

As far as references I don't have the time or energy to pick out every little part I disagree with, make a counter point and come up with a reference.....nor do I want to:)

I haven't seen anything you have written backed up with references Peter and I don't particularly expect to.

The only people I see backing up statements with relevant references regularly on this site are Greenbean and MCaxmaster and both of those guys are working on graduate degrees in the field and have ready access to them.

If you wanted to discuss domestic animal medicine maybe I could come up with something;)

FWIW IMO most science related to reefkeeping (not reefs in the wild) is what I call "hobbyist science" anyway and is typically fueled by a product/sponsor or the need to support a theory that someone's "expert" reputation relies upon with facts disputing that being ignored or somehow altered.

A couple of ways I think this thread could become more useful are:

1) To consolidate the list to make it easier for new reefers to make sense of what is being discussed....adding a disclaimer about opinions of course.

2) I also would like to see pictures posted of people's tanks that are major advice givers in this thread. A picture is worth a thousand words and IMO as far as credibility in reefkeeping the best way to prove you have something valid to say. Pictures are lot easier to come up with and a lot more fun to look at anyway. I personally have to read to many papers and getting on RC is a way for me to get away from all that:p

Here is mine before I lost all my Acros in a mishap earlier this summer:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y247/fishdoc11/DSC01852.jpg

JMO, Chris

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632302#post10632302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
the removal of the infauna in the top layer of the sand bed has a domino effect on the entire infaunal chain from top to bottom by upsetting the natural order of things.

:D

I guess I don't agree. For almost a year I have watched my Goby sift the VERY TOP layer only and have also watched many pods, worms, nameless critters and "bugs" flourish in the lower layers of my sand bed.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632302#post10632302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong

If your goal is to maintain a self-sufficient, deep sand bed (>4" depth) with a diverse population of infauna, it is best to avoid animals that eat this infauna. If you have other goals, then none of this applies to you.

:D

That is my goal. I only have my personal observations but I believe this is a huge misconception. Now if we are talking about animals that harvest from deeper in the sand bed, i.e. sea stars than I would agree. But not something that will stay within the top 1/2" max.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632711#post10632711 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I guess I don't agree. For almost a year I have watched my Goby sift the VERY TOP layer only and have also watched many pods, worms, nameless critters and "bugs" flourish in the lower layers of my sand bed.
Most of the beneficial critters are not visible to the naked eye.



That is my goal. I only have my personal observations but I believe this is a huge misconception. Now if we are talking about animals that harvest from deeper in the sand bed, i.e. sea stars than I would agree. But not something that will stay within the top 1/2" max.
The sediment ecosystem is composed of distinct habitats, each with it's own array of organisms. You cannot disturb the infauna in just the top 1/2" without it having an effect on the other parts of the sand bed just as you can't remove certain animals from a nature preserve without it having an effect on the other animals.

Any disruption to the natural balance of infauna in a sand bed is going to lead to undesirable consequences. The various sand bed infauna comprise predator-prey relationships just as wildlife in Yellowstone National Park. When wolves were removed, the coyote populations exploded. Now that wolves have returned to Yellowstone, coyote populations are back to the previous natural levels.

A disturbance to the natural balance of macro- and micro-infaunal populations will have an effect on the natural energy pathways. There is just no way that predation of the uppermost sand bed layer can be viewed as a good thing if one is trying to maintain a viable deep sand bed long-term. This predation can be tolerated provided it is low enough relative to the total size of the sand bed but it's certainly not desirable.

[virginiadiver69]

Well...all I can say is that I have been observing something different. I just can not believe that any life that may be eaten in the top layer is not present below.
Like I said...MY experience leads me to believe that this and a lot of other dogmatic, knee jerk advice is not always the case. It may be do to the fact that MY Goby is the only bottom feeder in a 125 gal tank. It may also be the fact that he eats like a pig when I feed the tank. Now maybe in a different situation your opinion would ring truer. Say a smaller, lighter fed, less established tank.
Way to often I see one "size fits all" advice given while forgetting that not all tanks behave alike. I know that there are some basic practices that MOST tank need to adhere to but...this is not one of them.

[Paul B]

2) I also would like to see pictures posted of people's tanks that are major advice givers in this thread. A picture is worth a thousand words and IMO as far as credibility in reefkeeping the best way to prove you have something valid to say. Pictures are lot easier to come up with and a lot more fun to look at anyway. I personally have to read to many papers and getting on RC is a way for me to get away from all that

In this hobby pictures are very misleading. I have seen some very beautiful tanks that I just stand back and say WOW until I realize that the tank has been set up for six months. You can make any tank look great for six months or a couple of years. Just buy a bunch of corals and position them nicely in a tank.
Most fish will even live for months with no food.
The true worth of a tank is longivity measured in years or tens of years.
If your fish are not living at least ten years and your corals are not growing and or reproducing you are failing at this endeavor.
I do not say this lightly. For years my tank thrived and looked (to me anyway) beautiful. I am having some problems now which means I am failing. But failing in this hobby anyway could be considered a good thing because we learn the most when we fail.
Don't get me wrong, my tank is still thriving and the fish are all healthy and breeding but the corals suffered a set back.
(I diden't find out why yet)
I don't take this as a setback, I find it interesting and since my tank is an experiment, anything that happens either good or bad is a rewarding experience that excites me.
I have no way to judge my tank because I know of no older tanks.
Maybe something happens to bacteria after so many years or maybe "Old Tank Syndrome kicks in after three decades :lol:
(A few months ago)

http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/13094DSC01323.JPG

[fishdoc11]

Thanks for posting Paul B. Your tank is amazing both in it's longevity and simplicity. Sorry to hear you had a setback....hadn't heard about that.
You get the award for most "rules" broken and still successful as far as I'm concerned:D

Chris

[jerryz]

I think the exception is nematodes. Their repro rate in the wilds is very low. The same for their survival rate in most peoples tanks for most varieties. Harvesting has a very noticeable impact on them. Oh and live rock might the other area, but in general i agree with this statement. recently i was snokeling on the most amazing reef in about 3 - 5 feet of water in southern MX. large fan corals swaying in water you could stand up in. Care had to be take or you would be thrown into the rock by the waves. Now it was off the beaten path but even so, as my brother and I sat on beach taking a break we watched some people from a boat stand up and WALK across this reef about 50 yards offshore. The amount of destruction from that is unimaginable. Certsainly causing more destruction than a large amount of collecting would.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582441#post10582441 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aninjaatemyshoe
"Reducing the demand for wild corals may help some, but it won't make a very big dent in the amount of corals being taken from the reef. As large as it has gotten, the live coral trade is still small compared to other uses for the reef such as construction. Regardless of the demand from the hobby, there will always be more demand for corals than supply and the collectors will always need jobs. To truly reduce the amount of corals being taken, economic alternatives to harvesting from the reef have to be offered and simply cutting our demand doesn't do that. Eco-tourism and responsible aquaculture are two possibilities."

[EvilE]

good read--thanks!!

[thejrc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10632365#post10632365 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
My main point was that, just like what is being disputed, a good bit of what is written in this thread is also opinion. I agree that most of the "myths" being discounted are incorrect but some not so much and that's also just my opinion.

So in short IMO it would be good for anyone that's reading this that doesn't have a good understanding of what is being discussed to take a good bit of this with a grain of salt.

As far as references I don't have the time or energy to pick out every little part I disagree with, make a counter point and come up with a reference.....nor do I want to:)

I haven't seen anything you have written backed up with references Peter and I don't particularly expect to.

The only people I see backing up statements with relevant references regularly on this site are Greenbean and MCaxmaster and both of those guys are working on graduate degrees in the field and have ready access to them.

If you wanted to discuss domestic animal medicine maybe I could come up with something;)

FWIW IMO most science related to reefkeeping (not reefs in the wild) is what I call "hobbyist science" anyway and is typically fueled by a product/sponsor or the need to support a theory that someone's "expert" reputation relies upon with facts disputing that being ignored or somehow altered.

A couple of ways I think this thread could become more useful are:

1) To consolidate the list to make it easier for new reefers to make sense of what is being discussed....adding a disclaimer about opinions of course.

2) I also would like to see pictures posted of people's tanks that are major advice givers in this thread. A picture is worth a thousand words and IMO as far as credibility in reefkeeping the best way to prove you have something valid to say. Pictures are lot easier to come up with and a lot more fun to look at anyway. I personally have to read to many papers and getting on RC is a way for me to get away from all that:p

JMO, Chris

I can agree with all of these to a short degree, but also realize that not all of us have the resources to access many of these papers. And even authors of published works are proven wrong or prove themselves wrong from time to time.

The thing is, exploration of reefs and reefkeeping itself is quite new and you dont really see the expenditures and media boost around it like you would say NASA and space exploration. I spend several hours a week reading papers on my main interest (harpacticoid copepods) and bang my head against a brick I keep here in the garage each time when I come across the constant paper publishing sites that wont let me view them because I am not "academic".

If the academic population wasnt so high and mighty in many cases better information would be available and you might see more posts backed up by written studies, but from my experience as a hobbyist I am ignored at best. Perhaps the academics in your field of study are less snobbish but I personally have sent hundreds of emails to copepodologists around the world only to get nothing in response, since I am not a student nor do I have time to be one I dont have access to the drove of constantly published works through tools like springer without shelling out a small fortune. I simply do not have the resources. Yet I do spend quite a great deal of time finding references and reading as much as I can get my "hobbyist" hands on, and I am happy for what I can find, it allows me to try and duplicate experiments as well as gleam information about my own why's and what's. But until better references are available for less than the $500.00 pricetags I've been seeing.... I'm going to do it the guerilla way.

I've become a big fan of this thread and it's open communication, I'd like to keep it that way and not have people digging on each other over things such as this though. And I do agree it's covered a huge range of topics that could easily be separated. If one wanted to they could build an entire forum around just the contents of this thread. Thats not for me to decide. At this point (to address your grain of salt comment) I think we can all agree that this post has become centered around the more experienced and/or experimental hobbyists and perhaps it's not for new readers to delve into immediately anyways. Perhaps a disclaimer or something simple to point this out? Unfortunately google can be unforgiving and take someone direct to the post matching a query, it's up to the user to read the thread and discern context.

As far as tank pics, I have a flatworm experimentation tank (another one of my hobbyist studies) that I've turned into a macro display with a good lump of fuzzy mushrooms to brighten it up. It's not a healthy tank obviously but it looks great. Right now I am purposely keeping nutrients overly high and I can tell you that most mushrooms I've encountered are amazingly resilient. These are propagating like mad! I wouldnt dare put an organ pipe or a chunk of monti in there as it would be plain stupid... a picture of this tank would be stupid to use as a recommendation but nonetheless it looks like a clean and well maintained tank. Without seeing things close up it's hard to make real judgements that's for sure.

I highly agree with the consolidation/ split of this thread though, as it would allow those of us discussing to focus on the topic's we're most interested in as well! And keep the thoughts coming!

Just an opinion though, and we all know what opinions are like....

[fishdoc11]

thejrc,
Just to be clear I'm not the one asking for references;)
I know how hard they can be to get....impossible without the right subscription etc....
Chris

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10633952#post10633952 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B

If your fish are not living at least ten years and your corals are not growing and or reproducing you are failing at this endeavor.
I do not say this lightly. For years my tank thrived and looked (to me anyway) beautiful. I am having some problems now which means I am failing. But failing in this hobby anyway could be considered a good thing because we learn the most when we fail.


http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/13094DSC01323.JPG [/B]

as an educator for 40 yrs I disagree with this statement. We learn best when we are having a good time and enjoying it. Mind you I have had a few students--but certainly not the norm---that do the best under pressure and motivated by stress
Many become fruststrated in this hobby when they fail--or broke :)
stop enjoying it and leave it for something else that is fun for them.
A site like this is base on the premise that we learn by others mistakes. I am thankful that there is such a great group of "experinced people on this site that want to help new people so they don't make the same mistakes.
That gets back to the prefix mis -----mistake or misconception--its great to have a thread that "airs" either for debate.

If someone sets up a beautiful tank in 6 months---then they should be commended--because they have beat all the odds of "going slowly "
Maybe going slowly is a misconception----but I will be the first to say no--go slow-be more successful.

From what I have read on the concept of "old tank syndrome" it is simply caused by human error--we stop doing or lose sight of the need to do the things that became routine and gave us success--more time between water changes, not monitoring tank parameter as much etc etc

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10640090#post10640090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur

From what I have read on the concept of "old tank syndrome" it is simply caused by human error--we stop doing or lose sight of the need to do the things that became routine and gave us success--more time between water changes, not monitoring tank parameter as much etc etc

Actually old tank syndrome is very often caused by the buildup of detritus in the substrate over years. Not always but that is fairly common.
I'm sure it could be caused by slacking off in tank maintenance as well...then again some people report noticable improvement when they "leave the tank alone". I've seen several posts where people didn't have as much time for the tank and couldn't believe how well it had done when they weren't as attentive as they once were.

Paul B's tank is 30 years old so I think we would have to call that "ancient tank syndrome":)

FWIW, Chris

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10639309#post10639309 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
thejrc,
Just to be clear I'm not the one asking for references;)
I know how hard they can be to get....impossible without the right subscription etc....
Chris

lets not lose sight of being academic to being well read

or being well experinced, or street smart to being academic.

I would consider myself academic and well read (others might disagree LOL) but I have little experince in salt water reefs.

If you read my signature "experience is the best teacher" I stand by that personally.
If you did a study of aquarium hobbyists I think you would find that successfull hobbyists consist more of blue collar ---electricians, plumbers, craftsmen, science teachers------rather then people with Phd's.

IMO--the best references would be:
able to communicate well in a non threatening non patronizing way.
thousands of posts that are actually informative--"good job" or would like more doesn't really cut it here
years and years of experience
years of mentoring with some of the greats in this hobby

IMO there isn't a moderator on this site that doesn't have all those qualifications
Don't get me wrong --I enjoy discussions and feel I can sift through things that I can buy into or not---so I think it is a waste of time questioning the qualifications of these guys
Lets get on with the discussion of misconceptions

[thejrc]

good point cap'n now on to the discussion at hand, with that PH drop you get in the evening do you have a lighted refugium or not? I've read several cases where running a refugium on opposite light cycle reduces this but I'm not quite sure how.

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10640511#post10640511 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
I've read several cases where running a refugium on opposite light cycle reduces this but I'm not quite sure how.

It only works IME if you have a large fuge and then not great. The premise behind it being the macro growing at night takes up CO2 and stabilizes the pH.
IME a kalk drip or dosing kalk some other way evenly throughout the day will keep pH very stable. FWIW you really don't have to keep your pH super stable. A swing of 0.4 or 0.5 is fine.


Chris

[fishdoc11]

Ok a couple of RC miconceptions:
1) Just because someone has thousands of posts don't assume they know what they are talking about.
2) Just because someone only has a few posts don't assume they don't know what they are talking about.

If you did a study of aquarium hobbyists I think you would find that successfull hobbyists consist more of blue collar ---electricians, plumbers, craftsmen, science teachers------rather then people with Phd's.

Reefers are actually the most diverse bunch I've ever been around. I see more engineers than anything locally but I have friends that are concrete layers, drillers, MD's, Phd's, water treatment plant supervisors everything. People with short hair, long hair, green hair, covered with tattoos, big, small...everthing. That's one thig that is so neat about it to me:)

Chris

[Sk8r]

May I add one Misconception? That acclimation is all about 'time.' Acclimate for an hour, etc., [during which time ph can be a real problem.]
Suggestion: set up your qt tank as close to what comes in from your favorite dealer as possible. Same salinity. Same ph. If the temp is moderately warmer it's not such a big deal as if it's colder.
Test the water of the incoming fish. If it matches in salinity, ph, and temp, put the poor critter into qt. Period. Other params are nice, but I've never lost a specimen where salinity and ph both matched and I got the critter into more water, dark, and quiet.
Just a suggestion.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10640621#post10640621 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
It only works IME if you have a large fuge and then not great. The premise behind it being the macro growing at night takes up CO2 and stabilizes the pH.
IME a kalk drip or dosing kalk some other way evenly throughout the day will keep pH very stable. FWIW you really don't have to keep your pH super stable. A swing of 0.4 or 0.5 is fine.


Chris

I do have a refugium --30 gal loaded with cheato--for the last week the light has been on 24/7 before that at night only---your right fishdoc--doesn't make a difference.

I am not concerned with the swing because it is minimal--just the downward spirial over a week from 8.1---7.9 ending up 7.6 to 7.8

I have tried opening doorrs windows etc at night as much as I can --its still hot out
It was suggested that I vent the small plastic air line from the skimmer outside--I am in the process of doing that
I realize the bottom line is working with messy kalk and drips etc--something my supplier has been talking me out of

the point is what is the harm in a bottom number in the 7.6 range
JB--who I have the greatest respect for--says I gotta move it up

this pattern has been going on all summer but my corals don't seem to be suffering (tank at 11 months)

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/reefescapetangster/IMG_4428.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/reefescapetangster/IMG_4429.jpg

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r107/reefescapetangster/IMG_4430.jpg

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10640720#post10640720 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
Ok a couple of RC miconceptions:
1) Just because someone has thousands of posts don't assume they know what they are talking about.
2) Just because someone only has a few posts don't assume they don't know what they are talking about.



Reefers are actually the most diverse bunch I've ever been around. I see more engineers than anything locally but I have friends that are concrete layers, drillers, MD's, Phd's, water treatment plant supervisors everything. People with short hair, long hair, green hair, covered with tattoos, big, small...everthing. That's one thig that is so neat about it to me:)

Chris

I hear you--- a have a very close friend who is a heating and ductwork guy and another who is a friend and my vet( I have three dogs)

I did not mean to take number of posts as a criteria----I meant number of posts that were constructive, not off the wall etc--that can be easy checked
I think it is a blend of experience and posting.

The more you post constructively though the better communicator you become---this gives people on this forum an edge over Phd's in chemistry and biology----any courses I took from them--lets put it this way--eh, huh?? :)

[fishdoc11]

7.6 is a little low but if your tank is doing fine I wouldn't worry to much about it. It's best to treat the patient not the lab results;)
If you want to get it up kalk really isn't that scary. People have been using it to can and dispose of dead bodies for years:lol:

Misconception:

You have to understand all the technical and chemical mumbo jumbo to be a successful reefer.

Just not true. It helps to have a basic understanding but having a successful reef is really more of an art than a science IMO. Some people just have a "blue thumb".

Chris

[thejrc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10640621#post10640621 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
It only works IME if you have a large fuge and then not great. The premise behind it being the macro growing at night takes up CO2 and stabilizes the pH.
IME a kalk drip or dosing kalk some other way evenly throughout the day will keep pH very stable. FWIW you really don't have to keep your pH super stable. A swing of 0.4 or 0.5 is fine.


Chris

ahh thats what I thought but I wasnt sure. I dont think the swings are as problematic as people make them out to be but it is interesting to see how many peices fit into it. I run my fuge on a 22 hour cycle with 2 off hours mid day when tank lights are on. From what I've noticed it hasnt done a thing for PH but has helped the growth of my macro and thus helps with nutrient transport. Then again I dont have an extremely large fuge, in fact it's almost undersized.

So the theory is to get something to consume the CO2 enough to stabilize PH during lights out I suppose

he he as far as where reefkeepers come from this is an interesting one to observe (seeing has how I had a club meet yesterday). The couple that got me to switch from brackish to reef do ironwork and etched glass.... my club is made up primarily of IT guys like myself, electricians, database consultants, and even a 14 year old batboy. I type this after reading an article in the 2007 marine fish and reef that illustrates the top 10 traits of good reefkeepers and it even puts a tilt on how many of us are from random walks of life. Keeps it interesting!

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10641380#post10641380 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
ahh thats what I thought but I wasnt sure. I dont think the swings are as problematic as people make them out to be but it is interesting to see how many peices fit into it. I run my fuge on a 22 hour cycle with 2 off hours mid day when tank lights are on. From what I've noticed it hasnt done a thing for PH but has helped the growth of my macro and thus helps with nutrient transport. Then again I dont have an extremely large fuge, in fact it's almost undersized.

So the theory is to get something to consume the CO2 enough to stabilize PH during lights out I suppose

he he as far as where reefkeepers come from this is an interesting one to observe (seeing has how I had a club meet yesterday). The couple that got me to switch from brackish to reef do ironwork and etched glass.... my club is made up primarily of IT guys like myself, electricians, database consultants, and even a 14 year old batboy. I type this after reading an article in the 2007 marine fish and reef that illustrates the top 10 traits of good reefkeepers and it even puts a tilt on how many of us are from random walks of life. Keeps it interesting!

can you post a link for that article--sounds really interesting

[thejrc]

hmm dunno if it was online, I was at the petco 1$ per gallon sale and it was a total impulse buy while she scanned the random assortment of tanks I was picking up for my pods. I havent been able to find it online yet. was worth the ten bucks though, had an article on worms, an article on breeding seahorses (a little lacking but trimmed for the mag and it was still informative), and a slick article on fungiid plate corals (why I nabbed it). a plenum study and a fairly decent article on light. all in all a good read!

Fishdoc'll tell you though.... after immersing ones self in journal studies and papers on intricacies of things like taxonomy.... reading an over the counter mag in laymans terms is a great great gift! Was nice to understand something for once he he

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10641147#post10641147 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
7.6 is a little low but if your tank is doing fine I wouldn't worry to much about it. It's best to treat the patient not the lab results;)
If you want to get it up kalk really isn't that scary. People have been using it to can and dispose of dead bodies for years:lol:

Misconception:

You have to understand all the technical and chemical mumbo jumbo to be a successful reefer.

Just not true. It helps to have a basic understanding but having a successful reef is really more of an art than a science IMO. Some people just have a "blue thumb".

Chris

depends what you mean by an art--finess yes but more then just having a pretty tank----a good knowledge of coral husbandry is very important.
IMO successful reefers have good basic science skills:
observation--number 1
inquistiveness
basic internet skills---eg using sites like these
labs skills---for mixing doses properly and using the test kits
mechanical skills in basic plumbing, and electrical
excellent manipulative skills

the may not be formally schooled in these but they exhibit the natural characteristics

[thejrc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10641531#post10641531 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by capn_hylinur
depends what you mean by an art--finess yes but more then just having a pretty tank----a good knowledge of coral husbandry is very important.
IMO successful reefers have good basic science skills:
observation--number 1
inquistiveness
basic internet skills---eg using sites like these
labs skills---for mixing doses properly and using the test kits
mechanical skills in basic plumbing, and electrical
excellent manipulative skills

the may not be formally schooled in these but they exhibit the natural characteristics

you forgot the most important....

spousal negotiation skills!

On a serious note though, most the people I run into have a mish mosh of these skills and rely on each other where one lacks. I'm not exactly a star when it comes to chemistry but I've got the interest and the want to learn and naturally I have several friends with the knack where I fall short.

It's the interest and the persistance... you can see the lack of persistance in the boards every day when you see the "selling everything" posts where the reason is almost always "dont have the time or interest anymore". Most times these were hobbyists who ran tanks for less than a year from what I've seen.

Once your hooked you pretty much stay that way, if your the right type of person!

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10641572#post10641572 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by thejrc
you forgot the most important....

spousal negotiation skills!

On a serious note though, most the people I run into have a mish mosh of these skills and rely on each other where one lacks. I'm not exactly a star when it comes to chemistry but I've got the interest and the want to learn and naturally I have several friends with the knack where I fall short.

It's the interest and the persistance... you can see the lack of persistance in the boards every day when you see the "selling everything" posts where the reason is almost always "dont have the time or interest anymore". Most times these were hobbyists who ran tanks for less than a year from what I've seen.

Once your hooked you pretty much stay that way, if your the right type of person!

you don't have to be an expert at that either----when you follow the golden rule or aquarium purchases

"everything costs 20 bucks"
:rollface: :rollface:
except when it comes to the favorite coral they want--then its like that's a lot of money---so nice you care enough about my hobby.....

with the ones that give up---sometimes you wished they could have been a little more proactive on sites like Reef Central

[melev]

This thread has been nominated for Thread of the Month. You can vote for it in this poll:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1193958

[Paul B]

as an educator for 40 yrs I disagree with this statement. We learn best when we are having a good time and enjoying it.

Capn, first of all I would like to thank you for being a teacher.
As for enjoying reefing. Since I have been doing it for over fifty years I guess I could say I enjoy it. :lol:
You are also correct about tradesmen having fish. I am an electrician.
I aquired my knowledge of reefs from diving on them since 1970.
I like hands on experience and all of the animals I have ever kept, I have dove with.
Another misconception is natural sea water. The main purpose of using it is not for the beneficail life which will probably die in our tanks in a few hours but the chemical make up which can not exactly be duplicated. Sea water changes with factors like pH and temp.
Have a great day.
Paul

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10642377#post10642377 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
Capn, first of all I would like to thank you for being a teacher.
As for enjoying reefing. Since I have been doing it for over fifty years I guess I could say I enjoy it. :lol:
You are also correct about tradesmen having fish. I am an electrician.
I aquired my knowledge of reefs from diving on them since 1970.
I like hands on experience and all of the animals I have ever kept, I have dove with.
Another misconception is natural sea water. The main purpose of using it is not for the beneficail life which will probably die in our tanks in a few hours but the chemical make up which can not exactly be duplicated. Sea water changes with factors like pH and temp.
Have a great day.
Paul

thank you for the compliment Paul--coming from a military background as you have---I have the deepest respect for your sacrifice and committment.
My son in law just came back from a tour in Afganistan and my daughter is a lieutenant in the army.

that is a great misconception about sea water---I am sure greenbean will jump in here---but it also leads to the misconception that you have to load your tanks up with phytoplankton to try an immitate the conditons of overabundance of food sources that surrond corals on the reef.

[Aquarist007]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10640727#post10640727 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sk8r
May I add one Misconception? That acclimation is all about 'time.' Acclimate for an hour, etc., [during which time ph can be a real problem.]
Suggestion: set up your qt tank as close to what comes in from your favorite dealer as possible. Same salinity. Same ph. If the temp is moderately warmer it's not such a big deal as if it's colder.
Test the water of the incoming fish. If it matches in salinity, ph, and temp, put the poor critter into qt. Period. Other params are nice, but I've never lost a specimen where salinity and ph both matched and I got the critter into more water, dark, and quiet.
Just a suggestion.

great points--the build up of ammonia and lowering of pH in the bag is something I really had not thought of but I do exactly what you suggested above.
along this line would it also be a misconception when LFS tell you a particular fish can live in a bag for 2-3 hours while you go shoppping with the wife(I exaggerating here :) ---and then you go home and acclimate it for another hour :eek2:

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630142#post10630142 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
31 or so

Base rock will become liverock in a few months

I say myth busted.

The anaerobic bacteria that is housed within tradition live rock will take years and even decades to grow in base rock. The anaerobes don't like oxygen and are not often found floating in the water column so they have no way of entering the rock which is quickly covered by the aerobic bacteria. I never believed this myself, even after I read the study, until i cracked open a piece of base rock that was in my tank for a bit over 5 years to find it void of anearobic bacteria as compared to a piece of rock that was imported with a coral attached which had a large population of the bacteria.
JME


Post actual evidense. I do not have a single piece of "Live Rock" in my tank. It seems to be working fine.


How do you think rock becomes live in the ocean?

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10582868#post10582868 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Peter Eichler
You're the one commiting the fallacy. Most indications point to low 80's being optimal since that's average for the areas where most corals are collected. Do you have an references to higher temps (above 80) being an activator for certain diseases or inhibits calcification.

Here's an article for you to read and think on.

http://www.reefland.com/rho/1105/reefc7.php

Well, many of my corals come from Fiji, as is common throughout the hobby in the U.S.

At least according to Walt Smith in Fiji, the reefs there average more in the mid 70's for most of the year.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
[and, he notes numerous issues with higher temps causing bleaching/death].

Personally, given his history, I discount many things said by Shimek .... esp when someone involved in the coral collection disagrees. If I'm betting with someone on this, I'd go with the guy in Fiji vs. the guy in Montana.

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10644803#post10644803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark

Personally, given his history, I discount many things said by Shimek ....

Amen to that.

Chris

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10644803#post10644803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark


At least according to Walt Smith in Fiji, the reefs there average more in the mid 70's for most of the year.

That's completely false. Water temps in Fiji are above the mid-70's in every month of the year. The average is in the 80's, not the mid-70's. If Walt Smith thinks the water temperature in Fiji at 8-20 feet, where he collects most of his corals, is in the mid-70's for most of the year, then he needs a better thermometer.

http://www.naia.com.fj/research/watertemp_lrg.gif

Reference (http://www.naia.com.fj/research/water.html)

"The University of the South Pacific has enlisted to help of NAI'A to set and monitor a series of extremely accurate sea water temperature recorders which provide a baseline record of ocean temperature at thirty feet against which to calibrate satellite-derived ocean surface temperature measurements. At present we have six recorders spread throughout the Fiji Islands. Check out the Sea Water Temperature Data gathered since the first year of recording."

[ricsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10630142#post10630142 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
31 or so

Base rock will become liverock in a few months

I say myth busted.

The anaerobic bacteria that is housed within tradition live rock will take years and even decades to grow in base rock. The anaerobes don't like oxygen and are not often found floating in the water column so they have no way of entering the rock which is quickly covered by the aerobic bacteria. I never believed this myself, even after I read the study, until i cracked open a piece of base rock that was in my tank for a bit over 5 years to find it void of anearobic bacteria as compared to a piece of rock that was imported with a coral attached which had a large population of the bacteria.
JME
It is a fact that anaerobic bacteria will spread to base rock in only a few months when placed in with live sand or live rock.If you did not have luck with it does'nt mean that it cannot happen,maybe your system is not healthy enough to accomplish this,but millions of satisfied people have bought aquacultured live rock.I think you need to get your facts straight before making such a preposterous statement.Have you ever heard of a Denitrater?,they only take a few months to populate with anaerobic bacteria and the only thing thats seeds them is the water column.What about deep sand beds?Do they take years or decades to start working?I think not!!!To say that anaerobic bacteria takes years or decades to spread is a totally false statement,unless your system is so dead it's not present from the start.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10644803#post10644803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
If I'm betting with someone on this, I'd go with the guy in Fiji vs. the guy in Montana.
Don't bet more than you can afford to lose.

:D

[danch]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10597561#post10597561 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Just a quick note: you're not describing a 'cause and effect relationship' you're describing a correlation and the confusion of that correlation with cause and effect.

Obviously, I agree with you're point: too many people see a correlation and assume that it's cause and effect.

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645005#post10645005 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
That's completely false. Water temps in Fiji are above the mid-70's in every month of the year. The average is in the 80's, not the mid-70's.

http://www.naia.com.fj/research/watertemp_lrg.gif

Reference (http://www.naia.com.fj/research/water.html)

Am I the only one that finds it odd they wear 3 - 5 mil suits when the average looks to be in the mid 80's and drysuits when the average looks to be in the mid to upper 70's?
I would be burning up!

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10644803#post10644803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Well, many of my corals come from Fiji, as is common throughout the hobby in the U.S.

At least according to Walt Smith in Fiji, the reefs there average more in the mid 70's for most of the year.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
[and, he notes numerous issues with higher temps causing bleaching/death].

Personally, given his history, I discount many things said by Shimek .... esp when someone involved in the coral collection disagrees. If I'm betting with someone on this, I'd go with the guy in Fiji vs. the guy in Montana.

That's an interesting read and I certainly value Walt Smith's experience in the matter. However, in the last two years since that thread I think the trend to keep warmer temps has continued to grow, as has the trend to not worry as much about small temperature swings yet I haven't seen much proof of the doom and gloom with keeping temperatures in the low 80's and having regular spikes one way or the other that many people in that thread are predicting.

Then there's that graph, which certainly clouds the statements of Walt Smith...

[Peter Eichler]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645017#post10645017 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ricsreef
It is a fact that anaerobic bacteria will spread to base rock in only a few months when placed in with live sand or live rock.If you did not have luck with it does'nt mean that it cannot happen,maybe your system is not healthy enough to accomplish this,but millions of satisfied people have bought aquacultured live rock.I think you need to get your facts straight before making such a preposterous statement.Have you ever heard of a Denitrater?,they only take a few months to populate with anaerobic bacteria and the only thing thats seeds them is the water column.What about deep sand beds?Do they take years or decades to start working?I think not!!!To say that anaerobic bacteria takes years or decades to spread is a totally false statement,unless your system is so dead it's not present from the start.


I've always felt that dead rock isn't as good as the real thing. This is purely anecdotal and based on observing various tanks that were started using homemade or various other types of reef safe rock. However, the doubling ability of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria is quite remarkable so I don't think bacteria colonization is much of an issue, and you're correct in that regard.

[SDguy]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by davidryder

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I agree hobbyist observation and scientific fact are far from equivalent, I don't think anecdotal observations should be dismissed simply because a scientist with a Ph.D. didn't perform a controlled experiment.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645112#post10645112 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
Am I the only one that finds it odd they wear 3 - 5 mil suits when the average looks to be in the mid 80's and drysuits when the average looks to be in the mid to upper 70's?
I would be burning up!

The average in Fiji is not in the mid-80's, it's in the low 80's.

Maybe I misread your comment. Sorry!

P.S. -- If anyone is interested, water temp readings for the Great Barrier Reef are available online, too. In fact, NOAA has satellite surveyed surface water temp readings and buoy readings for hundreds of locations around the world. A couple of those buoys are on the GBR.

NOAA Buoy Data Center (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/) You can pick out a buoy and then get current or historical measurements.

If you search the AIMS site (http://www.aims.gov.au/index.html), I'm pretty sure you can find a lot of information on water temperature measurements on the GBR. I remember seeing that several years ago but I haven't checked lately.

[fishdoc11]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645186#post10645186 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
The average in Fiji is not in the mid-80's, it's in the low 80's.



Same difference...I'd still be in skins or a shorty:D

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10644803#post10644803 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MiddletonMark
Well, many of my corals come from Fiji, as is common throughout the hobby in the U.S.

At least according to Walt Smith in Fiji, the reefs there average more in the mid 70's for most of the year.
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=5089918#post5089918
[and, he notes numerous issues with higher temps causing bleaching/death].

Personally, given his history, I discount many things said by Shimek .... esp when someone involved in the coral collection disagrees. If I'm betting with someone on this, I'd go with the guy in Fiji vs. the guy in Montana.

First, I'd trust the university of the south pacific more than i'd trust walt smith's thermometer.


IIRC, when he spoke at Imac last year, he talked about having different areas, some in the 70s, some in the 80s, and not really losing corals till they hit the 90s. (and no one is saying 90s are good)


I dont get what people's issue with Shimek is. He got in a fight with Bomber ( and didnt everyone?), and that was pretty much it, other than being kind of curmudgeony. I've never seen any problems with the integrity of his work.

If you have a problem with his numbers, post other information, dont take jabs at him

[Ninong]

Here's a nighttime SST (sea surface temperature) chart for December 1998. Notice the dark orange-red color in the Indo-Pacific. Remember, 30C = 86F. Looks like most of that area is around 87F for the month of December 1998.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020626181257/psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/monthly_means/December.98.monmean.gif

That's from an old archived link (http://web.archive.org/web/20020812130521/psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/al_climo_mon.html) that I stored a long time ago. I'm sure there's more recent data available online if you want to search for it.

[Linkblaze]

Hey all, Capn asked me to post this here from another thread. Maybe you can help clear this up.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645295#post10645295 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Linkblaze
It's always been my understanding that pH probes need to be kept in a medium that is near the pH of the electrode or it will dry out and need to be replaced. As far as I know this is always glass, but I suppose it could be made of something else. In the lab that's how we keep it.

However, I did some searching and came up with this:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-ph-meter.htm

" Many aquarists use pH meters in lieu of liquid testing. The probe can be placed permanently in an aquarium sump and the meter, mounted inside the aquarium stand or on a nearby wall. Freshwater cichlids and saltwater fish require alkaline water, while African Nile fish thrive in acidic freshwater. In an aquarium, pH fluctuation can cause illness or death to fish, so monitoring pH closely is paramount."

So, what you're doing is correct, according to that website. Why, I don't know.

[mbbuna]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645414#post10645414 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley

I dont get what people's issue with Shimek is, other than being kind of curmudgeony. I've never seen any problems with the integrity of his work.

If you have a problem with his numbers, post other information, dont take jabs at him

curmudgeony isnt the word for it. i asked him a while back if he could show me the reference that said pyram snails wont go from clams to snails or snails to clams because i had only found 1 reference that only looked at one species, and i had talked to many people who said they had experienced it, and he called me and the other people i talk to "stupid" and said that "that's just the way it is". then i asked someone who had better resources then i did and they found this http://www.biolbull.org/cgi/reprint/157/2/320
it tells a little bit of a different story.

and then there this artfully crafted story http://www.dtplankton.com/articles/necessity.html

from it- " Tridacna and Hippopus clams have symbiotic zooxanthellae located in their blood"

Ooh really:lol: i guess he's never heard of the zooxanthellae tubular system? that whole article is full of holes. read it and then double check the references he listed

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645922#post10645922 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mbbuna

and then there this artfully crafted story http://www.dtplankton.com/articles/necessity.html


FWIW, I dont trust ANYTHING I read on DT's site.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645922#post10645922 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mbbuna


and then there this artfully crafted story http://www.dtplankton.com/articles/necessity.html

from it- " Tridacna and Hippopus clams have symbiotic zooxanthellae located in their blood"

Ooh really:lol: i guess he's never heard of the zooxanthellae tubular system? that whole article is full of holes. read it and then double check the references he listed

You took that partial quote out of context. Here is the complete quote in context:

"As reef aquarists are aware, Tridacna and Hippopus clams have symbiotic zooxanthellae located in their blood, as well as in mantle and associated with their digestive glands. Probably as a result of natural selection to maximize mantle volume, and hence increase the number of zooxanthellae carried in it, tridacnids have undergone quite an extensive modification of the basic clam structures."


http://www.sfu.ca/~fankbone/r/smbzxn-b.gif


http://www.sfu.ca/~fankbone/r/chl-b.gif

[fishdoc11]

My favorite Shimeck "ism" is that astreas lack a "righting reflex" .....whatever that is:rolleyes:

Lots more examples if you look Rich.

Lots of people had arguements/debates with Bomber....only a few took their toys and went home....including Bomber.

Chris

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10645992#post10645992 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
FWIW, I dont trust ANYTHING I read on DT's site.
The article was commissioned by Dennis Tagrin but written by Ron Shimek. It explains the feeding processes of Tridacna clams.

[Ninong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10646141#post10646141 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fishdoc11
My favorite Shimeck "ism" is that astreas lack a "righting reflex" .....whatever that is:rolleyes:


If you google "righting reflex in snails" you will get 681 hits. That should help you understand what it is.

:D

[Ninong]

OK, so some of you guys don't like Ron Shimek's advice on reef aquarium husbandry. Fine. To each his own. But it's really a stretch to attack the guy on molluscan biology when that's his Ph.D. field.