Have we become slaves to parameters?

[blange3]

Maybe this is a good place to channel some of the passion we have regarding our ideals about managing our tank parameters.

There have been a lot of threads touting this alk range and that temp range and the thinking behind it. There have been lots of charts and statistics posted. But I have yet to see one before and after picture or even some comments that show when I do this, my corals improve in this way.

How do we tie all the chemistry and engineering back to making life better for the living creatures we have chosen to care for?

There have also been comments about testing the limits of what we can do in our artificial reefs. When we exceed the limits, things die. At what point does this become unethical or even immoral?

I have some thoughts, but I'll let others start.

Besides, after a few pargraphs, my wrists hurt! ;D

 

[JRodrig692]

Wow, that is a whole lot to take in.

In regards to Alk, I check it every 2 days. It is truely one parameter that I am on top of. Have lost stuff to a falling dKH and will not do it again. As for the others, checked weekly. As for temp, I leave it be. I run from 76 - 80 during the day and never had issue. Have seen tanks run at 74 and those run at 81 and those with 1 degree flucuation and mine with 4 degree flucuation. My opinion is keep it in the 72 - 82 range and your good.

As a human we are ever so driven by our desire to push the limits. We jump from planes, take drugs that are made for animals, drive fast and want to have things no one else has.

How many Moorish Idols or Nautliuses have to die before we realize they will not make it. Look at the Bangii Cardinal, now endangered and to be protected. We as humans are a greedy bunch that will drive anything to extenction just to have a "moment" of pleasure. We live for the now!

When you live in a society that to some money is no object, morality and ethics go out the window. In my opinion, it will never stop till everything is gone.

Greed, its all about greed. How many people have been lost to greed, how many more living things will be lost to it?

 

[blange3]

Wow Joe, talk about a lot to take in!

I think pushing the limits has it's place, if you have a valid purpose in mind and a plan.

I'm not sure of the details around Bangii's, but we can now tank raise them. So did aquarist's cause their plight, or have we potentially saved them?

I worked in the trade in the 70's and have a great debt to repay to Mother Nature. But since no one has curtailed the import of Gonioporas in that time and some successes have been documented, I am inclined to test the limits here if I can provide an environment that has a good chance of resulting in success. I would also feel obligated to document and share what I have learned.

Am I ever going to try to raise a shark in a 4' tank? No WAY! ;D

 

[Phyl]

From what I understand about the Banghiis we continue to decimate the populations IN SPITE OF being able to tank raise them because you can buy a captive caught for 12$ but a tank raised will run you $25. I think if there were higher "tariffs" on wild caught species, there might be more of an inclination for people to buy only what they could reasonably believe they could keep, to choose tank raised over wild caught, etc. Encourage a bit more responsibility in the industry.

Unfortunately, as Joe alluded to, this is an industry with a lot of disposable income at its beck and call (and call it does!). And I'm not sure what those tariffs would have to be to encourage responsible behavior while not making the barrier to entry so high that only the rich could enjoy the hobby.

I think we all have goals we shoot for in maintaining our tanks. I like my tank to be as automated as possible to reduce the potential for me to forget to top this off or dose that (or just get too busy to do either) so as a result, my tank tends to be on the consistant side.

As for pushing the limits, I think those are best done by those who are running scientific studies with control groups v. the experiment set. One of the speakers at MACNA was talking about clams and a study he was going to be doing with about 6-12 (I don't remember the number off hand) different experiment and control groups. Hopefully he'll learn something that we can take away from the experiment without losing many of the animals through the process.

 

[Carlo]

I'd love to show before/after pics but since I'm basically starting over from my tank electrocution at Easter when I moved the comparison is void. 6 months is the longest any of my current corals have been in a tank.

I try to match the reef as close as possible temps, lights, cloud cover, pH, and other water conditions, etc... With the exception of Calcium and Alk which I try and keep 40 ppm and 2 dKH respectfully above NSW (natural sea water) levels to give me a little "wiggle room". I've got tons of equipment at hand but presently only use protein skimmers, UV, Ozone and GFO (on occasion). No fuge at the moment (currently testing)as I'm finding it to be a swamp collecting stuff that the skimmers could have removed and my water params are fine thus far.

Limits: Wow, good question. I try and study actual reef data as much as possible, study various "systems" to learn the good and bad, use common sense to see if it makes sense compared to the wild. When/if certain studies/systems show promise with a level out of the ordinary I may try it on my tank after more research, keeping in mind what I think the safe limit are in regard to NSW or other parameters. Gut call. I've made adjustments to my system parameters based on my findings. Some things I'm currently interested in are amino acids, vitamins and the like (still in research phase).

I think if you use reasonable caution and common sense in your approach and something dies it's one thing, but if you continue to push or take something to the very extreme and things die it's another story and could be considered unethical and/or immoral. I've recently wanted a Moorish Idol(s) but after much head scratching do not think I can provide a suitable home for them with my current fish so I'm resisting. I think it would be immoral to get the fish under the present circumstances as it's wouldn't be from not knowing better.

Carlo

 

[blange3]

I'm with you on your approach Carlo, and my picture comment wasn't directed at you specifically.

I am concerned that so much of what we try to do with our tanks is geared to theories that have not proved to benefit livestock. And there lies the rub! Just how do we prove that parameter change was good or bad?

That is a question and not a challenge. I'm not sure how to quantify what I observe in my own tank, which I think has derived great benefit from less tinkering with additives and receiving more frequent water changes.

I find the colors more appealling, I witness more nights when all of the inhabitants seem to be at peak extension and I can see improved growth rates. The growth rates could be quantified, but how do I document that my tank takes my breath away more frequently now than before? :

 

[Carlo]

Yea, that's the problem blange3. You can take before and after pictures of things and this can help to a certain degree but that in itself doesn't really mean a lot. I'll rephrase that and say when things don't go poorly, for example unless there are major changes to a coral then how do you even know it's from a change you made and not just the coral itself getting adapted better to your tank. It's a gut feeling sometimes and nothing more. Sometimes it can be an illusion too. For example the bigger the corals get the better they can look type thing.

I didn't even think about the picture thing being directed to me. I just made the comment that because my corals are only 6 months old (the oldest) there isn't much to show. I could post awesome looking pictures or poor but what would it prove in only 6 months time? Not much in my opinion. It's like having a hard to keep fish for a month and thinking your an expert. Come back in a year, 6 months or at least 3 months. Heck many fish can last 3 months in a poor environment. Same with some corals.

Oh I got it blange3, we'll cut all your corals in half and dissect them. Then a year from now we'll do the other half and see if they were doing better. I say that as a joke but that's one way a scientific observation can be made but I don't think many of us would care for that method in our tanks.

I agree growth rates could be quantified but then how do we know it's healthy growth or the best growth rate for that particular coral? It could grow to fast and become "brittle", etc. Much of it is a catch 22.

Sorry, I was no help at all.

Carlo

 

[blange3]

Yea, that's the problem blange3. You can take before and after pictures of things and this can help to a certain degree but that in itself doesn't really mean a lot. I'll rephrase that and say when things don't go poorly, for example unless there are major changes to a coral then how do you even know it's from a change you made and not just the coral itself getting adapted better to your tank.
Oh I got it blange3, we'll cut all your corals in half and dissect them. Then a year from now we'll do the other half and see if they were doing better. I say that as a joke but that's one way a scientific observation can be made but I don't think many of us would care for that method in our tanks.

................................

I agree growth rates could be quantified but then how do we know it's healthy growth or the best growth rate for that particular coral? It could grow to fast and become "brittle", etc. Much of it is a catch 22.

Sorry, I was no help at all.

Carlo

Sounding out the limitations can be very helpful. I believe some growth studies include weighing the skeleton to quantify the amount of calcification, but as you point out hobbyists aren't about to sacrifice prime show pieces for dissection or other destructive or intrusive test methods.

Appearance doesn't always work as a method of evaluation, at least as a single method. Many LPS will stretch for light and appear be in great shape when they are actually in decline. Observation over a period of time can help, but the longer you evaluate, the more likely influences from other factors can come into play.

Which brings to light another point, we maintain integrated systems, not collections of individual parameters.

 

[AnDom1]

Hi All

Wow, a lot to consider here!!!

As for managing parameters, it is unfortunate that the many and expensive resources (in terms of animals, equipment & time) required preclude most hobbyists (even dedicated ones) from conducting experiments using the "scientific method". For one thing, there are too many individual parameters that must be isolated for measurement as well as for each's impact on the animals. Just look at the effort it takes Sanjay at Penn State to just evaluate the output of the various light bulbs, let alone to measure their impact on various animals.

What we are left with is basically "trial and error". We start with the body of knowledge regarding the parameters others have used to successfully keep (and grow?) reef corals. If and when we run into difficulty, we adjust based on everything from what Carlo calls a "gut feel" for what is needed to research of the literature to discussion on the many online forums to help from fellow reefers in clubs such as the NJRC. In the end, it is our collective experiences that add to the body of knowledge. After all, there are a great many diverse and proven systems in which reefs have been successfully maintained for years..Jaubert Method, Berlin Method, Refugiums, Algae Scrubbers and the list goes on.

Phyl, I respectfully disagree that "pushing the limits" is best left to those who can use scientific methods and controls. This kind of approach is usually undertaken by large organizations after trouble has reared its ugly head and is not consistent with how the fishkeeping (FW & SW) industry was developed worldwide. Witness the accelerated and belated efforts by the Phillipines, Australia, Indonesia and other governments to understand their reef environments. That's not to say they aren't doing or sponsoring good work now. It's just that they came after many hobbyists in Germany and the US had shown success in keeping, growing and breeding more and more species of aquatic animals. This includes the new development of equipment, etc.

Dom

 

[Subliminal]

Now that my ro/di has finally kicked in, and the only algae left in my tank is chaeto, halimedia and bubble (note lack of hair in the list ) I've started to watch 3 parameters:

Alk/Mg/Ca

2 days ago, My mg was ~1100, Ca was 340 and Alk was ~6 dKh

I added 10 mL of 2 Fishies A&B

Yesterday Mg was about the same, Ca was 360 and Alk was ~7

This morning I did was water change of approx 17% (5 gallons) with reef crystals

This evening I had 1200, 400 and 9

I added 5 mL of A, B and Tech M

I'm going to be a slave to those 3 params for the next few weeks, see how that goes.

 

[jazzsam]

Well you guys probably hate my methods of testing parameters. I do think that many people go overboard with them in my opinion. It is good to keep things in check but testing every day just is not for me. I think with everything in life there needs to be a balance and this is just the same.

 

[MikeNapoli]

Well you guys probably hate my methods of testing parameters. I do think that many people go overboard with them in my opinion. It is good to keep things in check but testing every day just is not for me. I think with everything in life there needs to be a balance and this is just the same.

I agree ... testing everyday for me would make it less of a hobby and more like a job. I keep my temp, Ph, Calcium all inline and as far as Mg and Dkh (you guys are going to laugh) I've never tested them. I guess I should get on top of that but so far my parameters are:

Ph 8.3
temp 81
calcium 460ppm
nitrAte 0
nitrIte 0
Amo 0
Fish Alive and growing
Corals Alive and growing

 

[Carlo]

I don't think that's wrong Jazz. I don't check parameters every day either. About once a week here except for pH, Temp, ORP which I can easily see on my Neptune box. Just looking at the tank itself can tell you many things when you know what to look for.

I think the key is have some type of set schedule to check things. It could be daily for some people and weekly for others. The only things I even bother to check even weekly these days is Calcium and Alkalinity. Nothing else changes. Monthly I may check a few other things or if I have a hunch something is off from looking at the tank.

Now if I'm in experimentation mode and know of side effects that's a different story but in general you get to know the "consumption rate" of your tank and can base your testing schedule on that over time.

NapoliNewJersey, Alk is probably the thing you want to check most at your stage of the game. Calcium and Alkalinity are the 2 that most people need to check on some type of routine schedule as they will change the most with a check of Magnesium say monthly.

Carlo
Carlo

 

[mladencovic]

...I think has derived great benefit from less tinkering with additives and receiving more frequent water changes.
...

Hmm, here is the problem - frequent water changes are implicit tinkering with parameters - you are resetting them to some constant value - all of them, at the same time, and significantly. Granted, you do not monitor any particular parameter, but that is just because you know that you will reset/adjust it whatever it is, in a significantly short period of time, so that any deviation from constant preset values (determined by any particular brand of salt mix) won't be detrimental to overall health of the bioload.

Unfortunately, I see water changes as the ultimate and the biggest failure to maintain natural (balanced) reef. Of course, I am fully aware of all the practical implications and limitations (read impossible) of an effort to create fully balanced natural reef. So please don't think of this as a critique or even advocating particular method of maintenance. As a matter of fact, many of the far more healthier and more beautiful tanks and corals then mine, that I have personally seen, are primarily maintained by frequent and significant water changes. It is just simply my personal philosophical view : that equates the water changes to blood transfusions (extremely beneficial, we all know that, but still, not natural) and supplements to vitamin pills which could be beneficial, those that we really need because we are not eating proper and healthy food, but in most cases of marginal consequence or even detrimental in some cases. :-\

 

[twan]

To be honest I test salinity, PH, and nitrate once a week.
Thats it. Maybe I should be testing for more and more frequently
but I do 2g a week WC on a 12g nano and so far so good after 16 months.

note: I'm only keeping 2 fish and no sps and I dont dose anything, which probably places me in the minority here.

 

[blange3]

...I think has derived great benefit from less tinkering with additives and receiving more frequent water changes.
...

Hmm, here is the problem - frequent water changes are implicit tinkering with parameters - you are resetting them to some constant value - all of them, at the same time, and significantly.

Absolutely! With my method of water changes and kalk drip only, the salt mix parameters become the baseline and the kalk drip replenishes daily alk/ca consumption. I have tinkered with my salt mix, but I do it in the 55 gallon batch I mix, not in the tank. I have settled on Tropic Marin and for the last month or so have been mixing it "stock." So far everyone is happy.

Unfortunately, I see water changes as the ultimate and the biggest failure to maintain natural (balanced) reef. Of course, I am fully aware of all the practical implications and limitations (read impossible) of an effort to create fully balanced natural reef. So please don't think of this as a critique or even advocating particular method of maintenance. As a matter of fact, many of the far more healthier and more beautiful tanks and corals then mine, that I have personally seen, are primarily maintained by frequent and significant water changes. It is just simply my personal philosophical view : that equates the water changes to blood transfusions (extremely beneficial, we all know that, but still, not natural) and supplements to vitamin pills which could be beneficial, those that we really need because we are not eating proper and healthy food, but in most cases of marginal consequence or even detrimental in some cases. :-\

And the philosophy which I have adopted is in sync with your statement. I believe we can only emulate a reef in our glass boxes, not recreate one. Parameters should be geared toward behaviors and health in the artificial environment we provide, not a futile attempt to recreate nature. Nature provides the template, but adaptations have to be made to compensate for our limitations.

 

[Carlo]

I see water changes the same way mladencovic & blange3 do. I almost fell out of my chair when Boomer mentioned he did 95% water changes in the other thread from a few days ago, which is the most I've ever heard of on an ongoing basis. But if that worked for him then great.

I see water changes as needed for two reasons only. One is for delusion of nutrient buildup and the other reason for micro additions of things you normally wouldn't add/dose to the system. In the case of delusion you can generally tell if there is a problem by checking phosphates & especially nitrates. If they are zero then there isn't a big need for delusion to take place. Although I don't practice it in this case a 10% water change per month should be fine for keeping the different "salts" deluded and balanced and will give your tank enough of the micro nutrients it needs.

What I don't like about the large water changes is that you need to be very, very careful that the new salt water is very close in temp & PH or you can stress out the tank big time. Kind of need to watch the Alk level too. Generally speaking I don't like water changes larger then 25% for anyone. Another reason I don't like large water changes is that you sometimes see differences in bags/buckets of salt from the same manufacturer. While it may not be a big deal with only a 20-25% water change this can cause problems easier with larger water changes.

From some buckets of salt I happen to have on hand:
Reef Crystals/Instant Ocean (same on both)- Change 20% of aquarium water every two weeks to maintain optimum water quality.

Tropic Marin - No more then 10% should be changed at one time, once every 1 to 2 weeks.

Oceanic - no mention on bucket or bags

Crystal Sea - Sudden changes in pH should be avoided; no more than a .1 change in pH should be made in a 24 hour period. Environmental shocks should be avoided such as; large water changes and temperature fluctuations. When changes are necessary, make them gradually. Example: a 10% water change weekly is more desirable then a 20% change every two weeks.

Red Sea Coral Pro Salt - For best results replace 25% of your aquarium water each month.
For kicks thought I'd throw this in from their website:
"The Coral Pro formula provides elevated levels of calcium at the "lower than natural" salinities preferred in reef aquariums." Don't know to many reefers who prefer lower then natural salinities. Gotta love marketing people.

Carlo

 

[Phyl]

I have to say that while I wouldn't endorse 95% water changes on an ongoing basis, I've done a few.

When I did it, I made no attempt at getting parameters (other than temp) close. To me it is like the occasional purchase/sale of a coral (but even the fish were fine with it).

Would I recommend it on a weekly/monthly basis? Certainly not... but I've also seen no problem in doing it either. As a matter of fact if things go really wrong in your tank contaminant-wise (spilled food into tank, nitrates off the chart, etc) I wouldn't think twice about that as a course of action to remedy.

 

[pgordemer]

Then there is the how much water and how often to change debate.

Though the most common heard is 10-15% a week, I have always had better luck (Read as stability) with 25% every two weeks. Its also easier to do overall.

 

[Carlo]

Is it safe to assume something bad happened to the tank? Like say some type of tank poision?

Is so, the way I'd look at that is, in an emergency when you think something has been put in the tank that can kill everything, then you do what you need to do. You try and match the best you can but try and change out the water as quick as possible under the situation and hope for the best. In a case like that it's warranted.

Is that the type of thing you were referring to?

Carlo