Guess the Phosphate level

[Thales]

Originally Posted by Fredfish

Well, this is a fun thread. Think for yourself, who knew...

Out of curiosity, do you have any observations on what is happening in your sump since you stopped removing detritus?

Not really. I don't look at it too much. Any idea of what kind of observation you are curious about? I can go down and report back.

[jroovers]

Originally Posted by Thales

The problem that I see with that is for every strong correlation and trend we have 10 batches of BS. Thoughtful experimentation could rid us of some of that and save lives and money.

I think you should call yourself the "Overly Skeptical Reefer" lol. Correlation and trends are backed by statistical info, not strong enough to prove causation, but to establish connection. I think there is generally enough information shared between reefers to establish best practices or most likely paths to success, but I digress...

Saving lives, it is really coming to that?

[Thales]

Originally Posted by jroovers

I think you should call yourself the "Overly Skeptical Reefer" lol.

I would rather be called that than called a band wagon jumper. lol.

Correlation and trends are backed by statistical info, not strong enough to prove causation, but to establish connection. I think there is generally enough information shared between reefers to establish best practices or most likely paths to success, but I digress...

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I would love to see the statistical info anyone has compiled on correlation and trends in reefkeeping, but I don't think anyone has actually put that together for just RC, never mind the wider reekeeping world.

Thinking there is enough information often is supported by cherry picking, making such 'best practices' inherently suspect. Just look at treatment of ich thread to see shared information coming up with anything but best practices.

Please note that I have said over and over again that anecdote is powerful and useful and almost all we have to go on.

Saving lives, it is really coming to that?

Of course - hasn't it always been about that? And money too. Are you not interested in saving animals lives or saving money? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

[jroovers]

Originally Posted by Thales

I would love to see the statistical info anyone has compiled on correlation and trends in reefkeeping, but I don't think anyone has actually put that together for just RC, never mind the wider reekeeping world.

No, I don't think anyone has done that. But it would be interesting to see. As it relates to SPS, Darryl put together a pretty solid list of TOTMs that had many things similar enough to point towards a trend. Can you definitively claim a correlation or a positive trend? No, but that is where one would likely start, as the information that is there strongly suggests that a trend or correlation exists.

Originally Posted by Thales

Thinking there is enough information often is supported by cherry picking, making such 'best practices' inherently suspect. Just look at treatment of ich thread to see shared information coming up with anything but best practices.

Just like thinking there isn't enough information is inherently suspect. Since some of the information is suspect as you put it, you're going to discount all of it? I would be nowhere if not for the information on this forum, and I would guess 80% or greater users of this forum would be too. Best practices are called "best" practices, not "perfect" or "end-all-be-all" practices. There are generally shared ideas that will put you down a path that is most likely to lead to success.

Originally Posted by Thales

Please note that I have said over and over again that anecdote is powerful and useful and almost all we have to go on.

I think we have more than that, we've got trends and correlation, while having to acknowledge that some systems will buck the trend.

Originally Posted by Thales

Of course - hasn't it always been about that? And money too. Are you not interested in saving animals lives or saving money? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

I think I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I thought we were discussing parameters in reef tanks and generally accepted husbandry practices, and unconventional approaches, next thing we're talking about saving lives and money.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by jroovers

No, I don't think anyone has done that. But it would be interesting to see.

Without it, it seems that we should not state what you seemed to stat about correlation and trends in the hobby being backed by statistical info.

As it relates to SPS, Darryl put together a pretty solid list of TOTMs that had many things similar enough to point towards a trend.

Maybe. TOTM on RC is not the end all of reefkeeping. There are plenty of tanks that are great that do not follow those trends.
How are TOTM picked?

Can you definitively claim a correlation or a positive trend? No, but that is where one would likely start, as the information that is there strongly suggests that a trend or correlation exists.

Not sure about strongly, but suggests of course.

Just like thinking there isn't enough information is inherently suspect. Since some of the information is suspect as you put it, you're going to discount all of it? I would be nowhere if not for the information on this forum, and I would guess 80% or greater users of this forum would be too.

Of course not! I don't think I have suggested that. Being skeptical is different from being cynical or discounting things out of hand. A skeptic is not closed minded to new ideas or old ideas, but is cautious of ideas that are presented without much, or any, supporting evidence. Anecdote is by definition something to be cautious of, as is information presented on public forums.

Again, anecdote can be incredibly useful, and sometimes it is all we have, but I think when we believe that anecdote is fact, when anecdote becomes dogma, we are risking a great deal.

Best practices are called "best" practices, not "perfect" or "end-all-be-all" practices. There are generally shared ideas that will put you down a path that is most likely to lead to success.

I think we have more than that, we've got trends and correlation, while having to acknowledge that some systems will buck the trend.

I am not sure how many trends and correlation we actually have, but we do have a lot of assumed trends and correlation. I think that is an important difference. We have seen so many trends that were thought to be critically important to reef keeping come and go that it is hard to not be cautious about the one currently enjoying popularity.

I think I am misunderstanding what you are saying. I thought we were discussing parameters in reef tanks and generally accepted husbandry practices, and unconventional approaches, next thing we're talking about saving lives and money.

I was responding to the idea about trends and correlations. If we assume that we have strong correlations and trends but we don't, animals suffer. We see this in so many threads about ich for example. We see it when people chase numbers to fit the assumed correlation between animal health and pH, when so often trying to artificially raise or lower pH results in animal stress. We see problems when people switch to a new salt mix because they see so many people switch and report good results (and it seems so much worse when they were having great results before the switch). We saw, and still see, similar when people add biopellet reactors to thriving reef tanks.

Hope that makes sense!

[GroktheCube]

Originally Posted by Thales

Sure! Set up two (more is better, but two will work) as identically as possible. Add the thing to be tested to one and not the other. Test and see if it does what it is supposed to do, and see what the control tank does without the thing being added.

This would be great on about a million things, including and not limited to:
Carbon dosing for nitrate (some numbers might remove some of the guess work)
Carbon dosing on phosphate
ATS on nitrate
ATS on phosphate
Ammino acids on coral color (harder because defining color is harder)
All the zeo products individually and together
LED vs MH on growth (need more than 2 tanks I think)
Any coral food
Any supplement
Bryposis controls, both chemical and biological
Etc,

See the Inland Reef link above for some practical ideas. I have been toying with the idea of a 'Reef Busters' organization, but that seems like a lot of work that I don't necessarily have time for, but it would be great. It would also be great to harness the power of MASNA and reef clubs to get this kind of stuff done.

A lot of this wouldn't be all THAT hard for many people to test, but some are trickier than others.

One of the challenges with things like supplements is accounting for variables in the water that might not even be readily measurable. Ie: quantity and type of zooplankton, organic nitrogen in salt mix, etc.

Things like LED vs MH however wouldn't be all that difficult to test in terms of logistics. Hook up a few smaller tanks to a larger system, cut a number of identically sized frags from a single colony, and toss them in. Still not quite perfect, but good enough to draw at least some conclusions, if repeated.

[Mark]

You named a fish after me? I'm honored! It's like your tank is a special club or something. Then again, there's a lot of Marks in this hobby! Anyway, I wasn't asking in regards to linking bio-load to phosphate. I'm with you on the phosphate skepticism. I remember seeing an experiment where sections of actual reef were blocked off from algae grazers, and those areas were quickly overgrown with algae. With such clean natural water, the casual observer would think about rock-laden phosphates and detritus. And it also lends a lot to the absolute necessity of herbivores on a reef..... Anyway, I was curious about your fish in regards to grazers. But also would love a complete picture regarding sponge munchers and pod predators. If you think that would derail the thread, no worries. I'll hit you up via other channels.

Originally Posted by Thales

Right! Common first

Billy
Susan
The Master
Number 3
Mark
Jake
Raj
Sanjay
Boomer
Joe

More later!

[Fredfish]

Originally Posted by Thales

Not really. I don't look at it too much. Any idea of what kind of observation you are curious about? I can go down and report back.

Well, I haven't really had a chance to peer in your sump and ponder, so Its hard to get specific.

If I were to make such a change, I would be curious to know how that might affect the sump. You are potentially leaving a bunch of snacks in that there sump. I'd be curious to know if anything showed up to dine or if the detritus just accumulates.

[DiscusHeckel]

Originally Posted by GroktheCube

Interesting. I know I've seen controlled experiments where elevated PO4 caused marked reduction in calcification. That makes me wonder if it's actually PO4 + "X" that causes problems, and whatever that "X" is isn't in your system. Or perhaps the other way around, in the presence of "X", PO4 no longer causes problems.

May I suggest that "X" could be amino acids. I subscribe to the latter (i.e. "in the presence of "X", PO4 no longer causes problems") To quote Habib (of Salifert): "Amino acids fulfil many important functions . They stabilise the skeletal material avoiding the transformation into a totally different crystal structure, and they also decrease the negative effect of phosphate on coral growth"

[reefmutt]

Originally Posted by jroovers

I don't think the experiments matter. I think we'll always have anecdote and correlation regarding nitrates, phosphates, etc. and their levels as related to coral health and color. However, as has been pointed out over and over in this thread, each tank is different and will/may react differently to whatever change or adjustment may be made to have a desired effect, even if the "science" tells you what should happen.

What we do have are strong correlations and trends though. There are enough people on here to define these trends and correlations with a certain amount of confidence. Is it proof, no, but it is the best we have in my opinion and the best we'll get. I would definitely say that Thales' tank and his phosphate levels are approaching two standard deviations from the mean. Based on everything I've seen and read, a low to undetectable level of phosphate and nitrate are the norm for SPS tanks. Those with 0 readings of both can have a colourful tank and may be on the opposite side of the trend line, but maybe they've packed their tank with SPS that thrive in ULNS, and on the flip side the person with detectable phosphate and nitrate have millis, caps, and stags that seem to enjoy or tolerate higher nutrient levels. If I were to advise someone else, I would suggest they follow the mean (low nutrients including phosphate and nitrate), as that is most likely where their tank will be - but maybe it will fall away from the mean.

Away from the mean the art part comes in. Careful observation, and I mean almost studious observation, is often overlooked in reefkeeping. Compared to the science, art plays a large role in this discussion and I think is the reason why we'll never have scientific answers for the reefkeeper (compared to a scientific study in a lab with a control and one independent variable as Thales has suggested). The "Art" is to watch your tank closely and decide what, if any, adjustments are to me made. I think every experienced reefkeeper on here will tell you that after a while, they don't really need to test too often for their parameters - they can tell through observation that things are out of skew. The art is also to then take a course of action that you feel is best warranted - maybe everyone is telling you need to do Plan A on this forum, but really you think Plan B is the best path, and therefore that is the one you should go down even if conventional wisdom and other reefers are telling you otherwise.

One or two tweaks in a reef tank, a complex "closed" system that reaches its own biological equilibrium, is akin to chaos' theory butterfly effect, where one small change can cause a chain reaction of events and trying to understand the what and how becomes almost impossible. So everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Couldn't agree more, Jordan..
What is a new reefer or even a seasoned reefer to take away from this thread?
Mostly, to be skeptical... Even of his thread..
Thales' tank cannot be used as evidence of anything and especially cannot be used by a newbe as an example of how to keep his/her reef..
A new tank (let's say less than 1 1/2 years old), I suspect would fail horribly if it had Thales' water chemistry..
This thread is for educational purposes and what it teaches is that there are many common practices in this hobby that generally get people closer to succes but sometimes (ok, Thales, perhaps even often) there are practices that produce good results that seem to go against conventional wisdom.
For a new reefer, conventional wisdom is the best there is at the moment and conventional wisdom suggests controlled levels of n and p produce better results than uncontrolled n and p..
In a mature system (I'd say 4-5 years old) when sponges, bacteria, microfauna and whatever else populates a system and it has established some sort of solid mini ecosystem, it seems that higher levels of n and p aren't as impacting on the health of the inhabitants.. Providing there is a multitude of algae grazers..
A new reefer or even an experienced one dealing with a set back must read this thread and many others as well as whatever research he/she cares to find and come up with a plan.. This plan will be based (more often than not) on conventional wisdom and even though some will disagree, more often than not conventional wisdom is more of a help than a hindrance...
Thales' tank I would argue is more of a hindrance than a help BUT I know Thales is not suggesting that people try to follow his numbers.... That's why this thread is here... To help people think for themselves and to gather up as much varying evidence that fits in with their individual reef keeping ideology and implement the practices he/she feels are best for them... If it doesn't work, they must go back the source of information and formulate a new plan based on what most people do to be successfull.. that's conventional wisdom.. Whether it's scientifically proven or anecdotal, trends in conventional wisdom seem to lead most (maybe only 51%) people to a higher degree of success.
I find that, although this thread is incredibly thought provoking- even eye opening, there is an element of futility to it.. Basically, no matter what you do, you are blind and may fail and you can't trust anything or any information..

But one has to trust the practices that lead the majority of people to some level of success and at the moment this comes from anecdotal evidence and not science..

[Thales]

Originally Posted by Mark

You named a fish after me? I'm honored! It's like your tank is a special club or something. Then again, there's a lot of Marks in this hobby! Anyway, I wasn't asking in regards to linking bio-load to phosphate. I'm with you on the phosphate skepticism. I remember seeing an experiment where sections of actual reef were blocked off from algae grazers, and those areas were quickly overgrown with algae. With such clean natural water, the casual observer would think about rock-laden phosphates and detritus. And it also lends a lot to the absolute necessity of herbivores on a reef..... Anyway, I was curious about your fish in regards to grazers. But also would love a complete picture regarding sponge munchers and pod predators. If you think that would derail the thread, no worries. I'll hit you up via other channels.

I was just goofing Mark -
1 Yellow Tang, Zebrasoma flavescens
2 (pair) Mandarin dragonet, Synchiropus splendidus
1 Rhomboid wrasse, Cirrhilabrus rhomboidalis
1 Blotched Anthas, Holanthias borbonius
2 (pair) Marine Betta, Calloplesiops altevelis
1 blue striped pipefish, Doryrhamphus excisus
1 Multicolored Angel, Centropyge multicolor
1 Potters Angel,Centropyge potteri
1 Orchid Dottyback, Pseudochromis fridmani

I also removed last week
2 (pair) Acreichthys tomentosus because they were nibbling on everything
1 Yellow Blotch Rabbitfish, Siganus guttatus
1 Gold Spotted Rabbitfish, Siganus punctatus
because they were nibbling on stuff and didn't seem to be eating the bryopsis - they have been in the tank less than a year.

Some of the fish in the top list have been in the tank a long time 5+years, if not 8+ years.

There are some reports that indicate that the Centropyge have a hefty impact on algae.

There are lots of various pods (from 10 years of tank) and some snails - beats me what is in there.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by DiscusHeckel

May I suggest that "X" could be amino acids. I subscribe to the latter (i.e. "in the presence of "X", PO4 no longer causes problems") To quote Habib (of Salifert): "Amino acids fulfil many important functions . They stabilise the skeletal material avoiding the transformation into a totally different crystal structure, and they also decrease the negative effect of phosphate on coral growth"

I would love to see some evidence that supports those claims, and some evidence that shows that additional addition of amino acids (beyond what is added with food) is beneficial, and in what way, for a reef tank. A simple side by side with the only difference being an addition of amino acids to one tank would be a great start.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by reefmutt

Couldn't agree more, Jordan..
What is a new reefer or even a seasoned reefer to take away from this thread?

Love it

Mostly, to be skeptical... Even of his thread..

Absolutely.

Thales' tank cannot be used as evidence of anything and especially cannot be used by a newbe as an example of how to keep his/her reef.

I am not sure of that. Why cannot it be used as evidence of anything? If anecdote is all we have, my tank and several more we point out in the upcoming article, are running higher than 'conventional' phosphate levels (where did that level come from BTW?) it seems that my tank is evidence of something.

A new tank (let's say less than 1 1/2 years old), I suspect would fail horribly if it had Thales' water chemistry..

Now that would be an interesting experiment. Before phosphate reducers, people used to recommend keeping the tank in the dark for a month or two after they cycle to prevent algae problems, and tanks seemed just fine. Perhaps 'maturity' is important, perhaps the rush to stock tanks is problematic in terms of overall tank yummyness.

This thread is for educational purposes and what it teaches is that there are many common practices in this hobby that generally get people closer to succes but sometimes (ok, Thales, perhaps even often) there are practices that produce good results that seem to go against conventional wisdom.
For a new reefer, conventional wisdom is the best there is at the moment and conventional wisdom suggests controlled levels of n and p produce better results than uncontrolled n and p..

But which conventional wisdom? Zeovit method? Balling method? Berlin method? ATS? The sps culture of RC? clay-boa? MR? A bottled solution? Lanthanum Chloride? The companies selling you the paraphernalia to keep n and p low?

In a mature system (I'd say 4-5 years old) when sponges, bacteria, microfauna and whatever else populates a system and it has established some sort of solid mini ecosystem, it seems that higher levels of n and p aren't as impacting on the health of the inhabitants.. Providing there is a multitude of algae grazers..

Might be. It seems to me that the biggest problem people see from high p is algae, so if you don't have algae problems, do you really need to worry about p? Maybe.

A new reefer or even an experienced one dealing with a set back must read this thread and many others as well as whatever research he/she cares to find and come up with a plan.. This plan will be based (more often than not) on conventional wisdom and even though some will disagree, more often than not conventional wisdom is more of a help than a hindrance...

It depends on the conventional wisdom. Many of the reefers I know that have been in it a long time, that do service, don't seem to care about working n and p. They are still doing the same thing they have been doing for years with great success. Conventional wisdom is relative, and currently seems to span a great deal of different methodologies.
You larger point is something I completely agree with - someone looking for advice has to make some kind of decision about what to do, and on the internets that can be difficult because you can find support for any idea. I generally suggest that people look for images and video of tanks they like the look of and consider emulating that methodology.

Thales' tank I would argue is more of a hindrance than a help BUT I know Thales is not suggesting that people try to follow his numbers.... That's why this thread is here... To help people think for themselves and to gather up as much varying evidence that fits in with their individual reef keeping ideology and implement the practices he/she feels are best for them... If it doesn't work, they must go back the source of information and formulate a new plan based on what most people do to be successfull.. that's conventional wisdom.. Whether it's scientifically proven or anecdotal, trends in conventional wisdom seem to lead most (maybe only 51%) people to a higher degree of success.

Great!

I find that, although this thread is incredibly thought provoking- even eye opening, there is an element of futility to it.. Basically, no matter what you do, you are blind and may fail and you can't trust anything or any information..

Yes! I think the idea that was put out there when mini reefs hit the market was that reefing was easy, and that that attitude has led a lot of people into the hobby that shouldn't be in the hobby, as they kill things, get frustrated, and then quit.

But one has to trust the practices that lead the majority of people to some level of success and at the moment this comes from anecdotal evidence and not science..

I do question who the majority is, as what the majority does is dependent on which majority you look at.

Thanks for the post!

[Thales]

Originally Posted by Fredfish

Well, I haven't really had a chance to peer in your sump and ponder, so Its hard to get specific.

If I were to make such a change, I would be curious to know how that might affect the sump. You are potentially leaving a bunch of snacks in that there sump. I'd be curious to know if anything showed up to dine or if the detritus just accumulates.

Looks like a bunch of mulm down there. Almost all the water from the overflows goes through the skimmer before hitting the sump proper. Sometimes I pretend that I am going to grow algae down there, but lately it doesn't seem to be growing well.

[dkeller_nc]

Originally Posted by Thales

You larger point is something I completely agree with - someone looking for advice has to make some kind of decision about what to do, and on the internets that can be difficult because you can find support for any idea.

And, unfortunately, the very format leads to real problems for someone just starting out. Reef Central has made an excellent attempt to try to alleviate some of that with "stickies" at the top of the "New to the Hobby" forum, but unfortunately the information is still fragmented out by specific topic.

So a beginning reefer to some extent has to know what question to ask (or even to know that a question needs to be asked).

To me, this is where books come in. It really astounds me that many (typically younger, but not always) are perfectly willing to spend several thousand on a reef tank, but aren't in the least interested in buying and reading a $30 book on the subject. The advantage a book has over a forum or an internet search is that there is a table of contents, and if the author has done a reasonably good job, that table of contents contains a list of the basics of what a beginning reefer needs to know to get a decent start.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by dkeller_nc

And, unfortunately, the very format leads to real problems for someone just starting out. Reef Central has made an excellent attempt to try to alleviate some of that with "stickies" at the top of the "New to the Hobby" forum, but unfortunately the information is still fragmented out by specific topic.

So a beginning reefer to some extent has to know what question to ask (or even to know that a question needs to be asked).

To me, this is where books come in. It really astounds me that many (typically younger, but not always) are perfectly willing to spend several thousand on a reef tank, but aren't in the least interested in buying and reading a $30 book on the subject. The advantage a book has over a forum or an internet search is that there is a table of contents, and if the author has done a reasonably good job, that table of contents contains a list of the basics of what a beginning reefer needs to know to get a decent start.

When I got into reefing around 2007 after 30+ years in the FW/FW planted tank hobby, I got involved in my local reef club and started reading up on websites like my local club's, Reef Central, and others. As my preferences in corals species developed (SPS), I basically didn't reinvent the wheel when I set up my system. I recreated the basic husbandry methods of those in my local club who had what I considered to be successful reef tanks, combined with reading tons of tank build threads, etc and seeing what their husbandry methods were as well.

The snake oil and latest fad trends are not limited to Reefs, with plenty being marketed in all areas of Aquarium keeping. Saw tons of them in the freshwater arena as well.

New or unproven methods will teach either what does or does not work, and that has value. Individual responsibility is to perform due diligence as best you can if you are thinking of trying something that has potentially negative or positive consequences for your reef.

The unproven methods I have tried successfully (mostly pest eradication) all came as a result of anecdotal observation by adopters, and were tried by me because reefers I trusted used them successfully as well. Whereas some may be cautious and not try something unless it has been scientifically proven or verified, their choice may mean continually dealing with an ongoing pest for an extended period of time. An adopter of an anecdotal method might nuke his reef, or he may take care of a pest in a short period of time, not have to deal with it any more, and can move on to other things. Your reef, your time, your choice.

I found the most effective chemical method of nuisance anemone/polyp/coral control I have ever used in an obscure web page reference from 2002 about 5 years ago, and it has been widely adopted by my local reef club, one of the largest in the country. Had I not been willing to try it myself, and others in my local club not trusted me and my anecdotal experience using it enough to try it themselves, no one in my club would have derived the benefits from it these last 5 years.

You have to use what you have available, and you need to cautiously filter what there is available regarding husbandry methods.

[johnike]

One of the best threads I've ever run across.

~Sent from my high Nitrate/Phosphate, well water, Berlin Method, colorful SPS, w/ancient DSB system~

[reefmutt]

thales, what i should have said is that your tank can't be used as evidence of anything any more than any other one tank can..

i don't know this but i think that there is a preponderance of successful reefs using methods (whether they be zeo, dsb or clay-boa- whatever that is..) which control nutrients and have success….. perhaps i am perpetuating the lie!!

conventional wisdom does indeed span many methodologies but what many/most of these methodologies have in common is having some control of pollution (n and p, organics)
thales, you don't seem to really try to control them at all… i think your tank goes against conventional wisdom… a convention of nutrient control which has produced more successful tanks than the convention of letting nutrients go willy nilly has..
Am i perpetuating the lie again??

i go back to my point of a new reefer, a new reefer has to get to know his/her reef… at least have an understanding of pollution control, amongst other extremely important parameters. Once they observe the relationships between energy in and energy out, they will be much better armed with knowledge, which will allow them to tweak their reefs the way they want to.

"Yes! I think the idea that was put out there when mini reefs hit the market was that reefing was easy, and that that attitude has led a lot of people into the hobby that shouldn't be in the hobby, as they kill things, get frustrated, and then quit."

i agree with this, completely but on some levels your tank, this thread runs the risk of perpetuating this.. hopefully, by now anybody reading this thread won't fall prey to tunnel vision reef keeping.

when you say,
'I generally suggest that people look for images and video of tanks they like the look of and consider emulating that methodology.'
what is the methodology that you use? would you suggest people follow your methodology?

im not trying to be argumentative.. well i guess I am, but not in a disrespectful way.. it just seems that this statement sort of goes against the spirit of this thread, yet i would agree with it except where it comes to emulating your tank

clearly, you are doing something as right as any other successful reef keeper.. not sure what, though!

I certainly look forward to reading your article.. and thank you for this thread!

[dkeller_nc]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

You have to use what you have available, and you need to cautiously filter what there is available regarding husbandry methods.

Your careful approach to research is commendable, and perhaps obviates the need to consult the common reef references. Unfortunately, that careful approach and joining a reef club to gain knowledge from more experienced folks doesn't seem to be the norm.

[DiscusHeckel]

Originally Posted by Thales

I would love to see some evidence that supports those claims, and some evidence that shows that additional addition of amino acids (beyond what is added with food) is beneficial, and in what way, for a reef tank. A simple side by side with the only difference being an addition of amino acids to one tank would be a great start.

This is the best I can offer you to the best of my knowledge. As I am not a marine biologist I am unable to set up and carry out the kind of controlled experiment you require. Sorry...

The evidence presented in this scientific article is good enough for me to dose amino acids in addition to my heavy feeding I do three times a day. Anecdotally (sorry I know this is not good enough), my corals react positively to amino acid dosing.

Moreover, I will approach Habib if I can get hold of him (he is one of the sponsors of a UK forum to which I am subscribed) to back up his claims.

By the way, this is a great thread for which I thank you.

[Thales]

Originally Posted by reefmutt

thales, what i should have said is that your tank can't be used as evidence of anything any more than any other one tank can..

Gotcha!

i don't know this but i think that there is a preponderance of successful reefs using methods (whether they be zeo, dsb or clay-boa- whatever that is..) which control nutrients and have success….. perhaps i am perpetuating the lie!!

I don't know if it is a lie or not. Part of the problem that I may be expressing is that there are some (many?) proponents of the different methodologies that are adamant that their way is the right way.

conventional wisdom does indeed span many methodologies but what many/most of these methodologies have in common is having some control of pollution (n and p, organics)

You bet. Nutrient control is pretty central to almost all methodologies - I actually can't think of one that doesn't - and I think the confusion comes when nutrient control becomes chasing numbers.

thales, you don't seem to really try to control them at all… i think your tank goes against conventional wisdom… a convention of nutrient control which has produced more successful tanks than the convention of letting nutrients go willy nilly has..

I am trying to control them, just not obsessing about it. I have a decent skimmer, usually there is some kind of macro algae growing in the sump, a bunch of live rock, and I usually dose Kalk, and a RDSB - all of those are at least partially for nutrient control. I stopped working on trying to knock the phosphate down for a few reasons 1- I am a lazy. 2 - It was expensive and a pain in the butt having to change GFO so often. 3 - the more I researched phosphate I couldn't find super convincing support for the problems that 'high' phosphate was supposed to incur (I didn't have an algae problem and the 'brittleness' reported in that pocci study didn't seem to have a practical impact). As I got more lazy about trying to deal with the phosphate, I noticed no real difference in the corals. IMO, phosphate is really the only thing 'out of whack' in my system.

Am i perpetuating the lie again??

Dunno, I am not really sure what you think the lie is.

i go back to my point of a new reefer, a new reefer has to get to know his/her reef… at least have an understanding of pollution control, amongst other extremely important parameters. Once they observe the relationships between energy in and energy out, they will be much better armed with knowledge, which will allow them to tweak their reefs the way they want to.

You bet. I suggest that new reefers read everything, and find a mentor or to to discuss stuff. I also suggest they start with a reasonable sized tank and only cultured animals to learn on. They have to develop a plan that makes sense to them then see how it works in reality.

"Yes! I think the idea that was put out there when mini reefs hit the market was that reefing was easy, and that that attitude has led a lot of people into the hobby that shouldn't be in the hobby, as they kill things, get frustrated, and then quit."

i agree with this, completely but on some levels your tank, this thread runs the risk of perpetuating this.. hopefully, by now anybody reading this thread won't fall prey to tunnel vision reef keeping.

Yeah, I don't know what to do about that. Usually, that kind of thinking comes from wanting to skip steps, and I don't know what to do to address that issue except hope. In the meantime, I try not to hide the idea that what we do can be complicated. I think more knowledge is better than less, even if it seems more confusing. I think reefkeeping at this point is as much an art as a science, and that there are therefore esoteric subtitles that may not be easy to get our minds around.

when you say,
'I generally suggest that people look for images and video of tanks they like the look of and consider emulating that methodology.'
what is the methodology that you use?

A straight forward system and benign neglect. Simple skimming, live rock for ammonia processing, RDSB for NNR, Ca Reactor (which I think of more as an alkalinity reactor) and not to mess with it too much. Lots of flow and 'good' lighting. Feed a lot. Not sure what we would call that.

would you suggest people follow your methodology?

Sure - if they want a tank that looks like mine and they get a good understanding of how and why I am doing what I am doing. Before they do, I would like them to read all the stuff I have written about the tank, the disasters, and even check the original build thread that got deleted by accident on another forum but was put back together from caches on my site. I would also suggest that they read Charles and Julians books.

im not trying to be argumentative.. well i guess I am, but not in a disrespectful way..

I gotcha! You don't seem abrasive so it feels like we are just talking, which is great.

it just seems that this statement sort of goes against the spirit of this thread, yet i would agree with it except where it comes to emulating your tank
clearly, you are doing something as right as any other successful reef keeper.. not sure what, though!

That is the interesting part. Maybe phosphate isn't the boogyman. When Julian was over we were talking about whether the tank would be better with lower phosphate, and how we could possibly determine that. For me, if it is expensive and time consuming, it doesn't seem worth the effort to change what is working. I am considering some kind of ATS and have been talking with Morgan from Inland aquatics, we'll see how that pans out.

I certainly look forward to reading your article.. and thank you for this thread!

Thanks and thanks for your input!

[Thales]

Originally Posted by AcroporAddict

I found the most effective chemical method of nuisance anemone/polyp/coral control I have ever used in an obscure web page reference from 2002 about 5 years ago, and it has been widely adopted by my local reef club, one of the largest in the country.

Right on. Which method is that?

[Thales]

Originally Posted by DiscusHeckel

This is the best I can offer you to the best of my knowledge.

Good stuff - though it seems to be about corals making amino acids, not adding them into the water for corals to uptake.

As I am not a marine biologist I am unable to set up and carry out the kind of controlled experiment you require. Sorry...

Sure you can. Get two tanks, set them up as identically as possible, add frags. Give the frags time to recover. Keep the methodology the same for both tanks, but start adding some commercial amino supplement to one of them. The hard part will be figuring out a way to quantify or even tell if there are differences between the two tanks or not.
The above is the first simple experiment, and I understand that even that takes time and money. This simple side by side trial may or may not give direction for further experiments.
You don't have to be a marine biologist to do science!

The evidence presented in this scientific article is good enough for me to dose amino acids in addition to my heavy feeding I do three times a day.

I might have missed it, but the paper didn't seem to say anything about dosing amino acids, so I don't know if dosing amino acids to the water column actually is helpful or not.

Anecdotally (sorry I know this is not good enough), my corals react positively to amino acid dosing.

Just stating that it is anecdote makes the anecdote more powerful. So - how are you determining positive reaction? How do you know it is the amino acid additions that are making that reaction and not the food you are feeding?

Moreover, I will approach Habib if I can get hold of him (he is one of the sponsors of a UK forum to which I am subscribed) to back up his claims.

That would be great. Tell him I say hi. I haven't talked to him since there was a rumor that he as dead.

By the way, this is a great thread for which I thank you.

Thanks and thanks for participating.

[AcroporAddict]

Originally Posted by dkeller_nc

Your careful approach to research is commendable, and perhaps obviates the need to consult the common reef references. Unfortunately, that careful approach and joining a reef club to gain knowledge from more experienced folks doesn't seem to be the norm.

Sorry if my post came across as disagreement to your original one stating the need for book reference. I totally agree with that as well. A good library of marine/reef reference books is a great resource for anyone. I still own my Martin Moe and Stephen Spotte books.

My post was meant to be supplemental to yours.

[Lubeck]

Here is a theory.... I believe the answer is the maturity of the tank. Are there any elevated PO tanks out there (over 0.08) that are younger than 2 years that have no sps coloration issues or algae issues?

I think mature tanks, greater than 3 years is why Thales can have the levels he has. (not the only reason buy a main contributing factor....)

I would be interested in seeing when this article comes out if there is a pattern with all the tanks that have elevated levels and if they are matured tanks.


I will also say that it doesn't mean that keeping these levels would be "best practice" but that the mature reef may tolerate the changes and adapt to them more readily.