to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[Anonymous]

I doubled my bioload with no change other changes. Ammonia and nitrItes remained at 0.0 nitrates bumped up to 20 then went back down. Therefore, the bioload and only the bioload caused the nitrates to go up to 20 them back down.

How can you prove it wasnt your denitrifing bacteria adjusting to the higher bio-load and was the macros that reduced the nitrate?

Well I probably can't. But doubling the bioload with nitrates above 0.0 when the tank was established for a couple of months resulted in nitrItes pegging the test kit for a week. And nitrAtes did not bump up the next day but weeks later. With macros fully keeping nitrAtes at 0.0, in less that a day, NitrAtes started increasing and there was no ammonia or nitrAte spike. Bacteria takes some time to double, plant life immediately switches to ammonia when ammonia is present. And it is common knowledge that plant life prefers to consume ammonia. Again take a gallon jar, fill it with saltwater, throw in some chaeto and see what happens. The newbie on RC was amazed. As have been several others I have communicated with.

But then if you don't think plant life does that, then I can't possibly prove it to ya.

And now you have a system that you think absolutely needs RO water. And therefore may not be available because the unit only produces a limited amount of that special water each day.

I keep a 5 gal bucket full of RO/DI/DI all the time by having it all set up with a autoshut off and float valve. This is for my auto top off for my big tank and upstairs I always have a 33 gal trash can that fills in about 2 days. I usually always have it full tho...so I for one never run out of extra water.

All totally uncessary. I have all the extra water I need right out of my tap.

FWIW, I have a 20G SPS reef and the only problem I have with it now is eradicating the grape calurpera that is terribly ugly in the display. Once this stuff gets out of hand and you decide you want it all out of the display all together how are you going to do it?

You are correct that caulpera grape is more invasive the profilera. My grape attaches to the rock whereas the profilera stayed in the sand. The grape and new feather spread into the display, not the profilera. Chaeto just remained a ball wherever it was placed. Had a anemone crab eat a tunnel through the chaeto. Fish seemed to like swimming through that tunnel. Meanwhile the chaeto slowly expanded. And really really took off in the in tank refuguim with hight lighting.

Point is not all macros or caulpera are like the grape. Second point is my wife likes the grape in the display. I will not try to erradicate it. But will probably do some pruning every couple of weeks or so. So far the corals seem just fine with the grape right beside them.

 

[Anonymous]

I doubled my bioload with no change other changes. Ammonia and nitrItes remained at 0.0 nitrates bumped up to 20 then went back down. Therefore, the bioload and only the bioload caused the nitrates to go up to 20 them back down.

How can you prove it wasnt your denitrifing bacteria adjusting to the higher bio-load and was the macros that reduced the nitrate?

Well I probably can't. But doubling the bioload with nitrates above 0.0 when the tank was established for a couple of months resulted in nitrItes pegging the test kit for a week. And nitrAtes did not bump up the next day but weeks later. With macros fully keeping nitrAtes at 0.0, in less that a day, NitrAtes started increasing and there was no ammonia or nitrAte spike.

Thats the problem with anecdotal evidence - you can't say if what you think happened happened. You continually describe events that happen in systems not set up like yours, but insist that what you did is what made those events happen.

Bacteria takes some time to double, plant life immediately switches to ammonia when ammonia is present.

And looks like in your system it had the time.

This is a picture of your tank yes?

 

[Anonymous]

I doubled my bioload with no change other changes. Ammonia and nitrItes remained at 0.0 nitrates bumped up to 20 then went back down. Therefore, the bioload and only the bioload caused the nitrates to go up to 20 them back down.

How can you prove it wasnt your denitrifing bacteria adjusting to the higher bio-load and was the macros that reduced the nitrate?

Well I probably can't. But doubling the bioload with nitrates above 0.0 when the tank was established for a couple of months resulted in nitrItes pegging the test kit for a week. And nitrAtes did not bump up the next day but weeks later. With macros fully keeping nitrAtes at 0.0, in less that a day, NitrAtes started increasing and there was no ammonia or nitrAte spike.

Thats the problem with anecdotal evidence - you can't say if what you think happened happened. You continually describe events that happen in systems not set up like yours, but insist that what you did is what made those events happen.

Just like you and everyone else posting here. After all no two systems are precisely alike. By the exact same logic you state here, RO/DI, water changes, no macros in the display, etc, etc should never be advised to newbies. After all their system is different from yours.

Bacteria takes some time to double, plant life immediately switches to ammonia when ammonia is present.

And looks like in your system it had the time.

then it had the time when I doubled the bioload before I added the plant life. Before the plants nitrItes pegged the test kit for a week then several weeks later nitrAtes rose. With the plant life The only thing that happened was an immediate bump up of nitrates which returned to 0.0 in a couple of weeks.

I get the distinct impression here you do not think plant life will consume ammonia before nitrates in an ammonia and nitrate environemnt. So a straight yes or no question:

Does green plant life consume ammonia before nitrAtes in an ammonia and nitrAte environment?

This is a picture of your tank yes?

Yep. right after a move, removing 1/2 the substraight, and installing the egg crate. Doesn't even have the plant life in the refugium there yet.

 

[Anonymous]

Thats the problem with anecdotal evidence - you can't say if what you think happened happened. You continually describe events that happen in systems not set up like yours, but insist that what you did is what made those events happen.

Just like you and everyone else posting here. After all no two systems are precisely alike.

Only in regards to anecdotal evidence. There has been much evidence presented in this thread to counter some of your claims that is not anecdotal, but that you have ignored.

By the exact same logic you state here, RO/DI, water changes, no macros in the display, etc, etc should never be advised to newbies. After all their system is different from yours.

No bob, the evidence supporting the efficacy of RODI, water changes, skimmers is not anecdotal.

This is a picture of your tank yes?

Yep. right after a move, removing 1/2 the substraight, and installing the egg crate. Doesn't even have the plant life in the refugium there yet.

When was it taken? How many moves have you put this 1 year old tank through?

 

[Anonymous]

Yep. right after a move, removing 1/2 the substraight, and installing the egg crate. Doesn't even have the plant life in the refugium there yet.

I thought "your" method required that macroalgaes (still not plants) had to be added to the system even before live rock...???

 

[Anonymous]

Thats the problem with anecdotal evidence - you can't say if what you think happened happened. You continually describe events that happen in systems not set up like yours, but insist that what you did is what made those events happen.

Just like you and everyone else posting here. After all no two systems are precisely alike.

Only in regards to anecdotal evidence. There has been much evidence presented in this thread to counter some of your claims that is not anecdotal, but that you have ignored.

The only evidence I have seen on this thread where there was a control was my posting on the effects of pumping water through crushed oyster shells. I takes more than believing the evidence to make it scientific.

By the exact same logic you state here, RO/DI, water changes, no macros in the display, etc, etc should never be advised to newbies. After all their system is different from yours.

No bob, the evidence supporting the efficacy of RODI, water changes, skimmers is not anecdotal.

I have no doubt the fact that (baring malfunction) RO/DI, water changes, and skimmers do exactly what they are designed to do. What I do challenge is whether stripping the input water of everything, Changing all parameters in the water, and attempting to remove dissolved organics, is the most effective way of maintain a tank. And all of those items are subject to failures. Failures which are totally avoidable.

This is a picture of your tank yes?

Yep. right after a move, removing 1/2 the substraight, and installing the egg crate. Doesn't even have the plant life in the refugium there yet.

When was it taken? How many moves have you put this 1 year old tank through?

~1/2-1 year ago. Tank has been running 2 years or so. Moved it once. Hopefully the wife will not reorganize the living room again.

 

[Anonymous]

Yep. right after a move, removing 1/2 the substraight, and installing the egg crate. Doesn't even have the plant life in the refugium there yet.

I thought "your" method required that macroalgaes (still not plants) had to be added to the system even before live rock...???

Yep. They are in the external refug in the stand. Had not yet added them too the intank refugium, and had not added the back lights to that in tank refugium. Nitrates went to 0.0 with the plant life in the in tank refug lit by the back lights.

 

[Anonymous]

Gotcha! Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Anonymous]

I have no doubt the fact that (baring malfunction) RO/DI, water changes, and skimmers do exactly what they are designed to do. What I do challenge is whether stripping the input water of everything, Changing all parameters in the water, and attempting to remove dissolved organics, is the most effective way of maintain a tank. And all of those items are subject to failures. Failures which are totally avoidable.

And you have yet to accept the fact that 'your' 'plant method' is subject to failure as well - and that such a failure, when it happens, is often more catastrophic and more difficult to deal with than the failure of any of pieces of equipment you mentioned.

 

[Bone]

The only evidence I have seen on this thread where there was a control was my posting on the effects of pumping water through crushed oyster shells. I takes more than believing the evidence to make it scientific.

Bob, I missed your post on the oyster shells. I would like to believe that it works but is it not a fact that given the pH of the aquarium water (eight or higher) that the shells will not dissolve fast enough?

 

[Anonymous]

The only evidence I have seen on this thread where there was a control was my posting on the effects of pumping water through crushed oyster shells. I takes more than believing the evidence to make it scientific.

Bob, I missed your post on the oyster shells. I would like to believe that it works but is it not a fact that given the pH of the aquarium water (eight or higher) that the shells will not dissolve fast enough?

You are probably right for the higher calcium loads.

Basically back on page 2 or 3 (or so) this is what I posted.

I had two tanks, my display with external sump/refug, and a macro algae culture tank. Both has silica based play sand, about the same amount of macros, the same salt mix, no water changes, evaporating same amount, with the top off water from the same source. Both had 250-300 ppm calcium. I added crushed oyster shells to a DIY filter box in the external sump/refug in the display system. And 5x/hour water was pumped through the shells in an area of 3"x10" through a length of about 6 " or so. Display is a 55g, macro algae culture tank is a 20g long. Over a 4-6 week period calcium slowly rose to 400ppm. And has stayed at the value for months. Meanwhile, the other tank remained at 250-300 ppm calcium.

I now have a few harder corals which are growing. I also have a fairly large amount of green calcium algae on the glass. Plus 1/2" round dots of pink corraline at about 8 places on the glass.

Yet with that report, posters respond that was not possible. But still my calcium rose to and has stayed at 400ppm and the other tank has remained at 250-300ppm. All I can do is report the methods and results. If others do not want to verify then that is their problem. But it is a shame minds are so closed. After all we used to use undergravel filters and state they buffered calcium. Anyone with an open mind would readily figure out how that is possible.

 

[Anonymous]

--

 

[Anonymous]

Big difference between buffering capability and increasing soluable calcium levels...

 

[Anonymous]

Yet with that report, posters respond that was not possible.

Because it really really looks like it isn't. You are living in the world of anecdotal evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If others do not want to verify then that is their problem. But it is a shame minds are so closed.

Back at 'ya.
It isn't up to us to convince you that there are many other things that could have raised your Ca level - but that hasn't stopped many people from repeatedly trying with you repeatedly ignoring them. You are making an extraordinary claim, and before we can go around singing your praises, you need to give us more than 'I say it works'.
The minds aren't closed (the fact that they keep coming back to try to discuss this with you yet again shows that), they just want more that post hoc ergo propter hoc before they devote any more time or resources to deal with you and your claims.
The simplest experiment that could be done to lend some credence to your claim is for you to remove the oyster shells and watch to see if the the Ca drops. The second simplest would be to stop rinsing them and see if the Ca drops.* You, however, are totally unwilling to put forth that minimal effort.

RR

*BTW,if you do either of my suggestions and your Ca drops to 250, it won't hurt your corals.
And, any current pics of your system?

 

[HClH2OFish]

Righty:
In other posts on this board this point has been brought up and the argument follows that since his tanks are ok and this is what he's seen it's proven for him. Therefore, it's up to *us* to setup tanks and try to reproduce it
Taken on a case by case basis with things he's doing in a tank, it's MHO that is *could* work...but not sure on long term effects on a reef tank.
Put all together though and we have the situation we're at -- situations where his methods are posted to the NRF for newbies to try and we're simply trying to advocate that his methods are *NOT* those that new reefers should be attempting.....not until this method is more proven.
And that's what he keeps failing to see, instead going on the defensive saying we're all close minded, etc etc.
Point remains....the system is unproven except for his experience w/his tank.

As stated by myself earlier....once we get our house, I'll see about picking up another tank (depending on $$ left over) and trying to duplicate his setup to see what I get....

If I do wind up able to do this, I'll post all results here...

 

[Anonymous]

I'm in the dark as to why he wants to prove that this is a viable solution for long-term reefkeeping when he hasn't actually done it himself. Maybe after 3 or 4 years with an awesome reef using just his techniques...

At any rate, I have a big refugium full of macroalgae. I'm sure it does something beneficial. But since I want to provide the best conditions possible, I also use a skimmer, RO system, live rock, and water changes. I can also tell you that if I had to cut out any one of those components, the macroalgae probably would be the first.

 

[Anonymous]

Righty:
In other posts on this board this point has been brought up and the argument follows that since his tanks are ok and this is what he's seen it's proven for him. Therefore, it's up to *us* to setup tanks and try to reproduce it

At this point, with the information he has given, I am not sure if I can agree.
We don't know if his tanks are OK - a pic would go a long way on this.
His tank has only really been stocked for 3 months or so after cycling for 9 months or so - just about any tank would be just fine with that time line and light stocking, regardless of filtration methodologies.
Specifically regarding the oyster shells, I think it is up to him to give us good reasons to try to repeat his results. IMO he hasn't. He could very easily do the most basic of experiments by removing the shells for a while and recording the results. Well understood science says it wont work, so until there is more compelling evidence, I see no reason not to put the oyster shell 'reactor' on the same shelf as the Eco Aqualizer.
I say all of this without heat, I just see no reason to try to reproduce his results when his results are so radically anecdotal. YMMV.

Taken on a case by case basis with things he's doing in a tank, it's MHO that is *could* work...but not sure on long term effects on a reef tank.

Some of them *do* work!

Put all together though and we have the situation we're at -- situations where his methods are posted to the NRF for newbies to try and we're simply trying to advocate that his methods are *NOT* those that new reefers should be attempting.....not until this method is more proven.
And that's what he keeps failing to see, instead going on the defensive saying we're all close minded, etc etc.

Sure.

Point remains....the system is unproven except for his experience w/his tank.

I think proven is the wrong word. I would be interested in evidence.

As stated by myself earlier....once we get our house, I'll see about picking up another tank (depending on $$ left over) and trying to duplicate his setup to see what I get....

If I do wind up able to do this, I'll post all results here...

Cool. You are a braver man than I.

 

[Anonymous]

righty: Basically, I have posted my experiemental results. With a control to show it was the added oyster shells. Now you state I have to remove them. Then I would have to put them back in and so on.

None of that would satisfy one of the basic tennents of science that the results are reproducable by various individuals. So at any case my results must be verified by others. That is the responsibility of others not me. I am truely sorry you simply do not understand that process.

hclh2ofish. Look forward to your results. Hope the $20 will not break ya (10g). Of course a larger tank would cost more

All still reading page 8:

What I find so absolutely amazing it the "newness" or "unproven" or "experimental" aspects of the reaction to "my" system. To me what is new is live sand, live rock, skimmers, RO/DI, PC or MH lighting. Tanks have ran for years and years using the same water that flows to the sea (tap), providing that sea with its trace elements, using the same plant life that filters that water and maintains the oceans including the reefs. And water flowing through a calcium carbonate source such as crushed oyster shells is nothing new either. It is just amazing this is all considered new, experiemntal and unproven.

And Mellen at RC reported that various corals, clams, and fish were kept by a brother 20-30 years ago. By using plant life in 75g tanks with NO lighting.

While the only sure thing to state is there is at least one type of livestock that will never be kept with these methods, I feel absolutely certain that the vast majority of what we keep can. After all not all corals need the conditions at a 75' deapth to live and thrive.

 

[Anonymous]

righty: Basically, I have posted my experiemental results. With a control to show it was the added oyster shells. Now you state I have to remove them. Then I would have to put them back in and so on.

You don't have to do anything.
I would like you to remove the Oyster shells and see if the Ca goes down because that would lend much weight to your claim that they caused the Ca to go up in the first place - something which well understood science says it won't do. You removing the shells and seeing what happens is and incredibly simple step on your part, much simpler than asking someone else to reproduce your set up, and would go a long way in getting the bulk of us to think your idea is anything by post hoc ergo propter hoc

None of that would satisfy one of the basic tennents of science that the results are reproducable by various individuals. So at any case my results must be verified by others. That is the responsibility of others not me.

Quite true. I am just looking for reasons to not reject your anecdotal PHEPH results out of hand; I am looking for a reason to want to even begin attempting duplicating your results.

I am truely sorry you simply do not understand that process.

And I am truly sorry that you feel the need to try to attack me instead of what I say.

What I find so absolutely amazing it the "newness" or "unproven" or "experimental" aspects of the reaction to "my" system. To me what is new is live sand, live rock, skimmers, RO/DI, PC or MH lighting. Tanks have ran for years and years using the same water that flows to the sea (tap), providing that sea with its trace elements, using the same plant life that filters that water and maintains the oceans including the reefs. And water flowing through a calcium carbonate source such as crushed oyster shells is nothing new either. It is just amazing this is all considered new, experiemntal and unproven.

I don't have the energy to go through all of that yet again.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm in the dark as to why he wants to prove that this is a viable solution for long-term reefkeeping when he hasn't actually done it himself. Maybe after 3 or 4 years with an awesome reef using just his techniques...

Yea yea yea I understand reef are this specialized super duper difficult things to maintain. (sarcarsm). But I had many many many problems then after 3 months of operation someone at a LFS (FW only) stated "if you are really really lucky you might get some macro algae on your live rock. then the years and years of FW and salt FO experience kicked in.

Sure I have not had corals for 3-4 years. But I do see the new little itty bitty baby polyps on my buttons and zoos poping up since nitrates went to 0.0 and I actually started feeding them. Daaaaaaa

Can you tell me what possible problems I can reasonably expect that would not be expected in a FW or salt FO when

1) Nitrates are 0.0 for two months
2) cyano bloomed then went away
3) calcium has remained at 400-425 ppm with hard coral and corraline algae growth
4) turbo snails are propagating
5) doubling the bioload only resulted in a jump of nitrates to 20ppm then back down in two weeks.
6) Fw and salt FO have ran for up to 6 years using plant life.
7) reef tanks with similiar methods have ran for 6 years

So short of something totally uncalled for like dumping a gallon of bleach in the tank, what is reasonable is the system will last for years and years with very little maintenance. It is not necessary to keep this a secret. Because it is proven. Just not the currently in vogue system of keeping reefs.

At any rate, I have a big refugium full of macroalgae. I'm sure it does something beneficial. But since I want to provide the best conditions possible, I also use a skimmer, RO system, live rock, and water changes. I can also tell you that if I had to cut out any one of those components, the macroalgae probably would be the first.

Understand and that is the current thinking by many. To me it is misplaced. But if you have never seen a tank (even FW) maintained for years and years with tap water, no water changes, no filter, and no circulation then you simply can not understand my point. To me that is the standard way of maintaining a FW tank. And with some modifications like the 5x circulation through crushes oyster shells, it is now the standard method for reef tanks. That is the reason I simply can not understand the need for all the gadgets is salt and reef tanks. All of which can and do fail.