to fatal morgana from newbies thread

[Anonymous]

reef tanks with similiar methods have ran for 6 years

Where is that? Got pics?

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 circualtion then you simply can not understand my point.

Hang on there? Are you suggesting that you can run a reef like that above statement? Can't be done.

Sure, someone can get a zooanthid to produce a bud in a sewer. But by a successful reef, I mean one with a decent fish load and able to support healthy sps.

 

[Ben1]

All of which can and do fail.

Plant life is will fail you much before a quility piece of equiptment will.

same water that flows to the sea (tap), providing that sea with its trace elements

I hope you arnt claiming the sea gets its trace elements from tap water. Or the sea is made from tap water.

To me what is new is live sand, live rock, skimmers, RO/DI, PC or MH lighting.

MOST of these exsisted since the beginning of reef keeping.

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

Yeah I could grow zooanthids in a 1 gal fish bowl with nothing but sunlight from the window and nothing else in the tank if I wanted to, wouldnt make me want to come here and claim it as "the way".

Sure I have not had corals for 3-4 years.

Even with 3-4 years of keeping coral, you wil still have a lot to learn. As we all do, this is a hobby that is constantly evolving for the better. No need to go back to methods that have been proven less effective then whats available today.

 

[Anonymous]

...

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.

Untill you attempt to duplicate the efforts, the results are proven. To prove the results wrong the experiment must be duplicated and it shown the results to not always happen. then science can anaylze the differences in an effort to determine what was going on. Again, what is not scientific is just to state "I don't believe you"

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

I was not even attempting to attack you but your idea that to prove this I had to remove the shells. That is not scientific.

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

Understand. Just venting.

May i suggest you attempt to explain why the calcium went up in the system with oyster shells and not in the system without?

 

[Anonymous]

Yea yea yea I understand reef are this specialized super duper difficult things to maintain. (sarcarsm).

You keep playing that card, but you keep failing to notice, despite its being pointed out numerous times, that no one is saying anything remotely like that.

The rest of your post has been covered numerous times.

 

[HClH2OFish]

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

To you...

If this were the standard, everyone would be using it. However...many others have tried this in the past on reef tanks and failed

Stating it is now the standard is simply bunk. Again, you are putting your OPINION as FACT.
We just want to see more evidence than you've currently given/stated.

As for your sarcasm re:reef tanks being difficult to maintain....simply put - they can be! When you compare to a standard FO tank.
And nobody here has said anything remotely like that in any of the threads, IIRC.
Keeping corals is more than just setting up the water and dropping in the coral.
These are very sensitive creatures and until someone has the experience to ensure all parameters are correct for whatever species they put in it SHOULDN'T be attempted by someone brand new to the hobby.
And yes, there have been successes, but there are FAR more failures by someone dropping in their new flashy coral and seeing it wither and die since they have no idea what they need to monitor/provide for that species. They aren't houseplants where you just feed em, water em and give em sun.
This is why everyone is saying *EXPERIENCE* That means more than a basic understanding of water chemistry, esp. that involving maintaining Ca levels, etc etc. (IMHO, it should be more than just "I added x and tested and now it's at y level...you need to know *WHY* it hit that level and what it effects on the rest of the tank.
And IMHO, THAT is why I don't like seeing this pushed on new reefers. To me it's akin to selling a 10Gal fish tank with a Clown and an Anemone as a Nemo special. Can it work? Yes. Is it more likely to fail? Definitely
Will there be successes? Yes
Should those successes override the fact that it SHOULDN'T be thrown at someone new to the hobby? To me, it's an overriding yes.

I've got the 10gal tank...just need the egg crate, crushed oyster shell (no clue where to get this in Phoenix), and silica sand. What brand sand did you use?
Also, what kind of pump/filter are you running?

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Untill you attempt to duplicate the efforts, the results are proven.

Not in the slightest. You have barely even presented any evidence, much less proof. I am honestly quite shocked that you would say something like that while at the same time claiming my understanding of the scientific process is flawed.

Again, what is not scientific is just to state "I don't believe you"

Again, I have never said anything like that.

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

I was not even attempting to attack you but your idea that to prove this I had to remove the shells. That is not scientific.

Thats good, but I have never said, implied or meant that you could prove your ideas by removing the shells.

May i suggest you attempt to explain why the calcium went up in the system with oyster shells and not in the system without?

So you can ignore it again? I don't have the energy.

 

[Anonymous]

Where is that? Got pics?

Mellen reported it but no pictures. I also got reports by googling for planted marine tank.

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 circualtion then you simply can not understand my point.

Hang on there? Are you suggesting that you can run a reef like that above statement? Can't be done.

Don't know about reef but feel it can be done with FO. And definately for FW. And the FW people say it can't be done also. As I stated for salt fo and reef do require some extra stuff from my experience.

Sure, someone can get a zooanthid to produce a bud in a sewer. But by a successful reef, I mean one with a decent fish load and able to support healthy sps.

Oh so now a reef tank must absolutely have sps. From what I have read here it seems that the fish load on "reef" tanks is much lower than on my systems. After all i did have 6 fish in a 10g for years before. But then I expect a lower bioload to be supported with DSB and water changes vrs using plant life.

again why would an sps not be heathy with calcium 400-425ppm, mag around 1200ppm, ald 2-2.5 meg/l, ammonia, nitrItes, nitrates, and phosphates, copper, iron, and all other heavy metals at ocean levels?

 

[Anonymous]

Plant life is will fail you much before a quility piece of equiptment will.

thanks for your opinion. I just disagree.

same water that flows to the sea (tap), providing that sea with its trace elements

I hope you arnt claiming the sea gets its trace elements from tap water. Or the sea is made from tap water.

Yep that is exactly what i am claiming. Or at least the rivers that flow to the sea where the tap water comes from and goes too. All filtered and maintained to ocean levels through plant life.

To me what is new is live sand, live rock, skimmers, RO/DI, PC or MH lighting.

MOST of these exsisted since the beginning of reef keeping.

Lr/ls is from the 1990 or so, skimmers from about the early 70's, ro/di I first heard of in the 80's. Sure some may have been sooner. So do I understand you to state that no reef tanks existed before the early 90's? Or is a reef tank defined as having LR LS? And definately absolutely no reef tanks existed before the early 70's?

From where I sit, it appears to me that 1) LR works with plant life. 2) the above system is just the current fad, 3) most if not all the filters had at least part of the design criteria, to reduce the dependance of the system on plant life. So if I break with the current fad and add plant life, all the stuff is unccessary. And the water conditions are exactly the same.

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

Yeah I could grow zooanthids in a 1 gal fish bowl with nothing but sunlight from the window and nothing else in the tank if I wanted to, wouldnt make me want to come here and claim it as "the way".

But you could at least say itis an option. Some newbies may not want to spend $1,000 when sunlight, plant life and simple containers will suffice.

Sure I have not had corals for 3-4 years.

Even with 3-4 years of keeping coral, you wil still have a lot to learn. As we all do, this is a hobby that is constantly evolving for the better. No need to go back to methods that have been proven less effective then whats available today.

Agree. I will always have a lot to learn. There is also not need to constantly spend many many $ for the newiest, super duperist, coolist thingie, when you already have a thriving system.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh so now a reef tank must absolutely have sps

No, but if your method works across the board, then it should be a possibility. If it works so well, surely someone is doing it. Show me ONE sps dominated tank using your method. Hell, show me one decent looking reef of any type.
As mentioned above, one can keep some polyps in a murky bowl in a window, but that doesn't mean a valid method of reefkeeping has been discovered.

Jim

 

[Anonymous]

same water that flows to the sea (tap), providing that sea with its trace elements

I hope you arnt claiming the sea gets its trace elements from tap water. Or the sea is made from tap water.

Yep that is exactly what i am claiming. Or at least the rivers that flow to the sea where the tap water comes from and goes too. All filtered and maintained to ocean levels through plant life.

Not even close, not even in the same galaxy, as truth. For one thing, your tapwater most likely comes from an underground aquifer embedded in the bedrock.

Second, once river water does reach the ocean, it is most decidedly NOT filtered by plant life, or algal life (two very different things). It is diluted drastically.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh so now a reef tank must absolutely have sps.

Of course not. I'm using them as an indicator of water quality.

again why would an sps not be heathy with calcium 400-425ppm

The sps would suck it out of the water overnight, so it wouldn't stay at those levels for long.

By the way, I have a FW nano right in front of me in my office. It's jam packed with plants, no filter or anything. I tried it first with just tapwater, and it was jampacked with algae. Changed over to remineralized RO and problem fixed.

 

[Anonymous]

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

To you...

If this were the standard, everyone would be using it. However...many others have tried this in the past on reef tanks and failed

one of the nice things about standards is there are so many to chose from. Maybe popular would be a better word. If people want to do all that work to avoid plant life in the FW system then so be it. Again to me it is the standard way of maintaining FW tanks and has been since the late 70's. Verified many time over by others. And you know what? When they deviate strange things happen. For instance, my step son in law recently converted his 30g to that method. After finally getting the plants in control (didn't have them in there from the beginning) he added a bubble rock. And that stirred things up and the plants starting disappearing. So now the buble rock is gone, more plants added, and the new plants are clean, bright green and growing.

Stating it is now the standard is simply bunk. Again, you are putting your OPINION as FACT.

my Opinion is my fact. just as your opinion is your fact.

...

I've got the 10gal tank...just need the egg crate, crushed oyster shell (no clue where to get this in Phoenix), and silica sand. What brand sand did you use?
Also, what kind of pump/filter are you running?

Crushed oyster shells are sold at feed and seed stores. They feed them to chicken for egg production.

Just plain old silica sand. I use play sand from home depot. or lowes of wall mart. Just about an inch or so. more for looks or to provide some stability for the rocks.

If you have a limestone quarry around you might try some "surge" rocks. You can drill them out to make the more porous.

In my 55g is put the oyster shells in a diy filter box that was 10"x 6" with the input about 10" tall and the outlet about 4" tall. With a center partition do that each side was 10"x3". So the water travels down about 4-5 " then back up about 2" before exiting the filter box. I use red landscape lava rocks (1-2") and the input and output kinda like bio balls and to better hold the shells in place. The pump was a mag 5 pumping against a head of 4'. I rinse the shells once per week but not the lava rocks.
So a 10g sized down would require less water flow. The mag 5 is rated at about 250 gph so 1/5 of the would be about 50gph. To keep the same amount of water contact on the oyster shells it seems that you would have to maintain the same speed through the shells for the same length. So about a 6" (4-5"+1-2") length with and area 1/5 of 10X3. or about 6 square inches. if round that would be a radius of about 1.38 inches. So if you could trickle 50g/hr of water through say an 8' length of 3" pvc with lava rocks on top and bottom with 6" of crushed oyster shell in between, that should be close to what I am doing on the 55g. It is extremely important that all the water flow through the shells. Most filters and powerheads to not do that.

I also have NO lighting 6" from the back glass pointing forward. That is what really cause the in tank refug macros to take off.

So let me know how it works.

 

[Anonymous]

again why would an sps not be heathy with calcium 400-425ppm

The sps would suck it out of the water overnight, so it wouldn't stay at those levels for long.

Not mention if you had a clam or three in there Bob. 8O I can guarantee you that my gigas clam would not show much growth in such a system. Furthermore, you should strive for calcium levels above 400ppm. 500ppm or sightly higher works much better if you want to see much growth.

Jim

 

[Anonymous]

heh- I have a calcium reactor and dose kalk and still can't maintain 400.

 

[HClH2OFish]

heh- I have a calcium reactor and dose kalk and still can't maintain 400.

That's because you don't have crushed oyster shells in the reactor.....



*wink*


Just kidding Bob

 

[Anonymous]

Plant life is will fail you much before a quility piece of equiptment will.

thanks for your opinion. I just disagree.

I cant see what that disagreement could possibly be based on. You haven't used the equipment, show a marked misunderstanding of its function, and your tank has only had any significant corals in it for 3 months.
Have you ever seen a tank with a macro crash?

same water that flows to the sea (tap), providing that sea with its trace elements

I hope you arnt claiming the sea gets its trace elements from tap water. Or the sea is made from tap water.

Yep that is exactly what i am claiming. Or at least the rivers that flow to the sea where the tap water comes from and goes too. All filtered and maintained to ocean levels through plant life.

That is amazingly off base in regards to reality.

From where I sit, it appears to me that 1) LR works with plant life.

Not really.

2) the above system is just the current fad,

Maybe.

3) most if not all the filters had at least part of the design criteria, to reduce the dependance of the system on plant life.

Umm, no. Not at all.

So if I break with the current fad and add plant life, all the stuff is unccessary. And the water conditions are exactly the same.

Actually, the current fad is to add 'plant' life.

Yeah I could grow zooanthids in a 1 gal fish bowl with nothing but sunlight from the window and nothing else in the tank if I wanted to, wouldnt make me want to come here and claim it as "the way".

But you could at least say itis an option.

We have. Maybe if I type it again you will hear it. WE HAVE. It, however, isn't really a great option for new reefers, nor is it the type of system they seem to want.

Some newbies may not want to spend $1,000 when sunlight, plant life and simple containers will suffice.

I would bet cash money that almost all new reefers do not want such a system. The majority want a beautiful tank, not a poorly lit container that can only support limited reef life.

I will always have a lot to learn. There is also not need to constantly spend many many $ for the newiest, super duperist, coolist thingie, when you already have a thriving system.

And again, no one has ever tried to make the point you are arguing against.

 

[Ben1]

Lr/ls is from the 1990 or so, skimmers from about the early 70's

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rv/feature/

Enjoy the reading.

 

[Ben1]

And one more tha thas more to do with the history of LR/LS:
http://www.garf.org/news6p3.html

Ignore all the garf B.S. in the artical and you will be ok.

The point is Lee Chin Eng was using LR/LS in the 60's, very early in any "reefkeeping".

So do I understand you to state that no reef tanks existed before the early 90's? Or is a reef tank defined as having LR LS? And definately absolutely no reef tanks existed before the early 70's?

If I didn't say it, don't assume I did or that I hold an opinion that I do not.

 

[badgergoth]

I've been watching this thread for a while, and I propose an experiment.
At home I currently have
1) a spare tank
2) tap water
3) salt (from a brackish tank I used to have)

I'm also an ex-chemist, so I know something of scientific method.
I'm also new to reefkeeping.

In order to not kill anything through this experiment, I'd need a way of simulating bio-load/ammonia spikes etc.

Bob, I need you to tell me exactly how I set this thing up. Everyone else can then appraise this setup and critique its scientific validity.

Does that sound like a reasonable way to end this debate?

 

[Rikko]

Bio-load and ammonia spikes can be simulated using... you guessed it.. household ammonia. It's actually a very common method for cycling a FW tank.
Add with a dropper until you get a desired level of ammonia (FW people throw in anywhere from 2ppm-5ppm typically) and let 'er rip. There's your simulated fish poop... though whether or not it smells better I can't really say.

Some people also cycle their tanks using human urine......... Sigh.

I'm planning a similar small scale science experiment in the near future. I'm sick and tired of fighting with co-workers about "bacterial supplements" and what a miracle they are. Time to do a test with my bare hands and bring it back to them and show how useless they are (or eat my words).