Beaslbob! Now's Your Chance to show your stuff!

[Anonymous]

"My" method as stated above is to simply get the plant life thriving as the first thing and then do the rest.

I totally misunderstood your "Method". All this time your method is simply to use an algae scrubber. I do apologise Beaslbob, I believe Algae Scrubbers can be a benefit to saltwater aquariums. I totally misunderstood the point you have been making all this time. We both agree that Algae scrubbers can be beneficial.

Yes. Algae scrubbers are just one way of implementing plant life to complete the ecosystem.

I do not agree with you that Plant life is typically beneficial though. Other than Mangrove trees I don't know of any other plant that I consider beneficial and Mangroves are questionable in my mind. I'd suggest sticking to algae and skip the plants. Some can look nice but they are not nearly as easy to care for as an algae like Chaetomorpha. Most marine plants require nutrient rich substrate and that is a big problem for reef tanks.

You are confusing plants with my plant life. I dont mean vascular plants I mean the more general plant life as in not animal life. Which includes all the algaes as will. I even believe that tanks where even the simple algaes are allowed to grow are better than tanks that are attemped to be maintain in a totall sterile looking algae free state. but most would rather see plant life like mangroves, sea grasses or macros.

If the algae thing is your only platform then what's all the crap you keep pushing against skimmers, purified water, water changes, heaters, good lighting, good waterflow, live rock, etc. etc.?

those are all secondary. With or without those things the tank will thrive if you establish plant life as the first thing.And just for the record, Ihave always stated that some circulation helps. But to illustrate the effectiveness of plant life I have posted an experience when I had not circulation.

And in the Fw tanks plants sand water, lights and fish are all that is needed. But that is FW.

 

[Anonymous]

My issue with beaslbob's opinions isn't with the fact he uses macroalgae filtration (it's all been done before decades before him), but rather he persistently discourages the use of skimmers, ro/di, and other "high tech" equipment. The biggest concern I have is he pushes a method that is lasse faire (seemingly for the sake of convenience and cost cutting), and this lazy, cheap approach is probably very attractive to new reefkeepers (but certainly not something I would recommend based on my first person experience).

Len: that is the reason I have received numerous emails from dumbfounded newbies. And the reason very experienced reefers locally are now amazed at the results. And even LFS's have added refugiums to their systems.

They have been told the only way to keep a reef tank is with all that stuff. Then 6 months-2 years later they find they need a refugium with plant life after all. As thomas712 at SWF found out. After 2 years of flames on how my methods so terrible, he finally got his nitrates down to undectable levels by adding a refugium.

Sure it looks lazy. sure it looks cheap, sure it looks just like a convience. But it works.

The simple, cheap, convienant, lassey fair addition of the use of plant life to establish a balanced ecosystem simply trumps everything else.

 

[Anonymous]

Encouraging macroalgae growth in your refugium is like encouraging skimmate in your skimmer. Both are simply a byproduct of excess nutrients. In a perfect world, you wouldn't have any skimmate produced and macroalgae would barely grow, if at all. So boasting that you have thriving plant life sounds kind of out of whack with what we're trying to accomplish in (most) aquariums--rapid coral growth and very low nutrient levels. There's a reason you don't usually find massive growths of macroalgae AND coral side by side on wild reefs.

So we tell newbies that.And they go out and add 5 fish to a 20g and wonder why they get all this ugly green stuff, why the ph is under 7.8 and can't come up with buffers, and why the fish are breathing heavy and covered by white spots. And then acouple of days later ask why the fish have all died. After all the used ro/di, they change 10% water each week, They got a good filter. They got a good cleaner crew. What could possibly be wrong?

When all they had to do was add plant life and insure it was thriving.

 

[Anonymous]

beaslbob,

i don't understand your point.

in the link to saltwaterfish.com the tank in question probably goes algae crazy because the guy is using unfiltered tapwater in LA.

The reason he has algae is simply he has nutrients in the water that is not being consumed by other plant life. By simply establishing plant life when is started the system ammonia, nitrates, and phosphates would be undetectable in a week. and the micro algae turning his water green would never have sufficient nutrients to be noticable let alone completely cloud up the water.

try this instead...
he is using unfiltered tap water in LA (have you ever tried to drink that stuff?), his system can't handle the funk in the water and the rock starts dying.
this further elevates the nutrient load that the tank has to process and when there are excess nutrients laying around and accumulating faster than the tank can consume and/or the tank's nutrient converters have been nuked by chemical additives from the unfiltered tap water.
so this guy cleans this mess up and trys to take some advice from some misled fellas about mangroves and thier importance in reef aquaria and assumes all is well until he notices a week later that the nutrient load is still not being consumed and it may never be again because he continues to poison these animals with LA drinking water.

I had not noticed the mangrove sprout. the point was that after all that work, three days later the water is already starting to turn green again. The original green water, the teardown, and the green returning would not have happened it he has simply established the plant life from the start. Now he is justifiably confused and fustrated.

correction....it may not have happened.
if you think you have a fail safe manner in which everyone can keep reef tanks successfully than i must inform you that you should have your head examined.

then you link some RDO members tanks that are completely different in composition... none of it makes sense.

It does when the problems of algae returning are common. As is not establishing plant life. then it makes total sense.

only if you think that there is only one way in which a tank can go wrong and have algae problems.
then i absolutely agree :wink:

you say this guy on RC, Beanpole, uses "your" methods and yet i did a search on him and found no evidence that he advises against skimmers, just that he doesn't use one which isn't really news to anyone. people have always done this.
he doesn't tell people to use unfiltered tap water as you do and i see nowhere that he states he doesn't change out water.

I chat with him each month and exchange posts at a local forum. He stumbled across the no water changes some time ago when he was away from his tank and busy. He was dumbfounded how is parameters didn't change. Now he is convinced.

so you two think that no water changes and no addition of calcium and alkalinity other than oyster shells will keep up with a stocked system :lol:

if you change out enough water and you don't need a skimmer or a refugium :wink:

You are correct. If you run an open system constantly pumping sea water to the tank and back to the see then you don't need much of anything else. Anything less then a 100% waterchange will not maintain say nitrates at 0.0 or any other parameter at optimum values. Water change do slow but not correct trends. To get consistant optimum values you need the system itself helping out. With nitrates having plant life consume those nitrates. And when the system is maintaining those parameters then water changes are not only unecessary but probably detrimental. And provide the hobbiest an opportunity to screw something up.

wrong... you still will not maintain 0.0 nitrates with an open system... the ocean is not void of these types of things
and you are wrong that "plant life" is a necessitty in maintaining optimum values those values of which are not the same in aquaria as they are in the ocean... in most people opinions that is.
if you had some experience keeping a heavily stocked tank of calcifying corals you would learn this first hand.

also regarding this beanpole tank that you cite as evidence... the corals he is keeping are very forgiving in regards to water quality. i am not surprised in the least that he can keep zooanthids and discosoma. corallamorphs are tough as nails.

so? I'll still take his 3 month old tank over the green machine above.

another oldschool expert, eh?

 

[Anonymous]

the word of beaslbob is spreading!!! :lol:

refugiums are not new.

 

[Anonymous]

try this instead...
he is using unfiltered tap water in LA (have you ever tried to drink that stuff?), his system can't handle the funk in the water and the rock starts dying.
this further elevates the nutrient load that the tank has to process and when there are excess nutrients laying around and accumulating faster than the tank can consume and/or the tank's nutrient converters have been nuked by chemical additives from the unfiltered tap water.

Yep that is what happened. He followed the standard advice and that is exactly what happened. Had he simply established thriving plant life at the start none if it would have happened. And the water would have remained clear. But then he didn't get that advice. I can't post there.

so this guy cleans this mess up and trys to take some advice from some misled fellas about mangroves and thier importance in reef aquaria and assumes all is well until he notices a week later that the nutrient load is still not being consumed and it may never be again because he continues to poison these animals with LA drinking water.

You are again correct.He probalby will continue to have problems until he gets the plant life thriving. Then the water poisoning the millions of people in LA will no longer be poisoning his tank.

correction....it may not have happened.
if you think you have a fail safe manner in which everyone can keep reef tanks successfully than i must inform you that you should have your head examined.

I don't claim that. Hmmmm my head looks fine. But I can eliminate failures from ro/di processes, water changes, and most additives. but you can still use all that if you want.After all they are secondary to establishing the thriving plant life.

only if you think that there is only one way in which a tank can go wrong and have algae problems.
then i absolutely agree :wink:

No actually there are many ways.

so you two think that no water changes and no addition of calcium and alkalinity other than oyster shells will keep up with a stocked system :lol:

Has so far. But you could be correct. I do ,however, have a sps that has grown. But perhaps with a higher calcium load I'll eventually have to use another method. But then I really don't think you understand how the shells are working. they are 98% or so calcium carbonate. there is a nightly ph drop. the shells do have continuous water flow which prevents a higher ph boundry layer when the shells dissolve. and calcium rose to and has stayed at 400ppm alk 2 kh both of which are pretty close to ocean values. Not the same for a local that added who added crushed coral to his trickle filter. His calcium rose to 500ppm.

So the shells dissolve until the ph recovers. Then the dissolving stops. More calcium load, more nightly ph drop, more dissolving. So the system gets calcium based upon the calcium load. Sure if I crammed calcium in there, corraline would explode and the spss would grow faster. But for the ease of maintenance and definately cost I'll take slower corraline growth and I am quite satisfied with 1/2" or so growth on the sps per month.

I would much rather do that than crash a system dripping kalk or overdosing the two parts, Or fiddling with the calcium reactor and co2 injector. And my media is only $5 for 50 pounds to boot. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

As has been posted before, prove yourself by doing a nano for the contest.

Words and deeds my friend, words and deeds.

 

[Anonymous]

You are again correct.He probalby will continue to have problems until he gets the plant life thriving. Then the water poisoning the millions of people in LA will no longer be poisoning his tank.

i sense sarcasm... you do understand that i could swallow a wad of copper and be none the worse for wear so long as it came back out... could you say the same for your inverts?
i could easily consume a cup of water from my local swimming pool but i wouldn't want to top off my tank with it.

After all they are secondary to establishing the thriving plant life.

secondary to what?
a refugium will not eliminate the algae woes of reefkeepers.
this is old news, many tried tanks just like yours and have moved on to better ways.

find me one old salt that practices what you preach.

so you two think that no water changes and no addition of calcium and alkalinity other than oyster shells will keep up with a stocked system :lol:

Has so far. But you could be correct. I do ,however, have a sps that has grown. But perhaps with a higher calcium load I'll eventually have to use another method. But then I really don't think you understand how the shells are working. they are 98% or so calcium carbonate. there is a nightly ph drop. the shells do have continuous water flow which prevents a higher ph boundry layer when the shells dissolve. and calcium rose to and has stayed at 400ppm alk 2 kh both of which are pretty close to ocean values. Not the same for a local that added who added crushed coral to his trickle filter. His calcium rose to 500ppm
So the shells dissolve until the ph recovers. Then the dissolving stops. More calcium load, more nightly ph drop, more dissolving. So the system gets calcium based upon the calcium load. Sure if I crammed calcium in there, corraline would explode and the spss would grow faster. But for the ease of maintenance and definately cost I'll take slower corraline growth and I am quite satisfied with 1/2" or so growth on the sps per month. .

how low is your ph getting?.. lower 7s? if so, that sounds dangerous.

I would much rather do that than crash a system dripping kalk or overdosing the two parts, Or fiddling with the calcium reactor and co2 injector. And my media is only $5 for 50 pounds to boot. :lol:

you speak of things as if they are complicated.. you just drip kalk at no higher rate than it evaporates from your tank... what is so hard about that?
if you were to have some coralline growth you wouldn't rely on the refugium to such a degree and you water wouldn't get so funky.

 

[Anonymous]

You are confusing plants with my plant life. I dont mean vascular plants I mean the more general plant life as in not animal life.

Your statement can only make sense to you. I'm not confusing you for a plant. Or, are you saying you have some new form of plant?

In the marine ecology there are Plants, Animals, and Protists. I do not believe plants are helpful but the jury is still out and if someone proves otherwise I won't be too surprised. Macro algae isn't plant life, it's Protista. Plant life examples are Turtle Grass, Mangrove Trees, etc.

 

[golfish]

Bob,
Kudo's for you, I'm glad to see that you stopped spreding your **** on the newbie forums...or did the mods do that?

 

[Anonymous]

With or without those things the tank will thrive if you establish plant life as the first thing.And just for the record, Ihave always stated that some circulation helps. But to illustrate the effectiveness of plant life I have posted an experience when I had not circulation.

Show me...

 

[Anonymous]

As has been posted before, prove yourself by doing a nano for the contest.

Words and deeds my friend, words and deeds.

as illustrated with the pictures and references in this thread words and deeds have already spoken.

But then you have to actually listen and not dismiss untried ideas. Which is what is not going on here. "Standard" procedures result in constant problems and "my" non standard procedures result in awesome systems that mature very quickly. As the pictures in this thread show.

Regardless of what the newbie tank is going to be, make sure they spend all the money, have all the maintenance, all the possible failure modes absolutely required for the most demanding livestock they could ever want to keep.

Yet commercial facilities grow those same demanding corals with algae scrubbers and no skimmers (inlandaquatics 33,000 g). But don't let the newbies know that.

 

[Anonymous]

Show Me...

 

[Anonymous]

Show Me...

Take up the gauntlet bob and do a nano for the contest. As you say, the cost using your methods is minimal.

 

[mark78]

As mentioned before, fuges have been around awhile, so I guess Bob must think we're all idiots or he invented the idea, much like Al Gore invented the internet!

Nothing personal, but none of those tank pics above overly impresses me.

Plants require more then just nitrate to grow. How are you replacing trace elements if you never do water changes?

I think everyone here is sick of hearing you preach about "your" methods, when all you post is other peoples tanks.

I seem to remember some pics of your tanks and I don't think anyone was impressed. If I remember correctly you can't keep fish alive anyways.

None the less your threads still carry decent entertainment value, so I will keep reading and chuckling to myself

 

[Anonymous]

In Beaslbob's defense, he has never stated that he invented the idea of using algae. He often states that it's not his original idea.

His original idea is to rely completely on algae to do all maintenance for the system. He proclaims that it works better than using skimmers, water changes, pure water, etc.

I want to see him start a reef tank using just algae and have him show me that the stuff he's recommending to new hobbiests actually works and that the end product looks like something these new hobbiests would like to have in their living room.

As far as I can tell from reading his posts he has not ever actually started a reef tank using his ideas. If that's true then he has absolutely no experience at all with using his own method.

so... I ask him to show me....

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a picture of a system using 'Bob methods' (whatever that actually is, he seems to keep changing his mind):

I am not amazed by the results, and I would not want a tank that looked like that in my house. Nor am I amazed by the photo of the other tank that Bob posted as evidence of the greatness of his method.

I am further unimpressed with his choosing one tank crash as proof that other methods aren't good while ignoring all the tanks using algae filters that crash.

I am also worried because Bob seems to ignore the idea that all systems are different and continue to make absolute predictions about what would have happened if it had been done 'his' way. This alone should be enough to cause people to question his posts.

 

[Anonymous]

In the words of Paul or barnabas I forget which...


Almost thou hast persuaded me (to leave the sump and stay up here for entertainment) :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Agreed. I am not impressed by the tanks showed here. Perhaps you can show us a link to a tank that looks like the TOTM. The TOTM does have a refugium but it is not the only thing. If you notice that he has some of the following:

Protein Skimmer
CA Reactor - Not Oyster Shells
Lots of flow
RO/DI system not straight tap water
Heaters
Chiller
Phosban Reactor
Kalk Top-Off

Well I guess that tank is totally wrong by the amazing coral growth, color and absolute beauty.

Not a comercial for lawn doctor.

 

[Anonymous]

First of all, it's refreshing to see an antagonistic thread in a sea where complinents have long been overfished.

Len: that is the reason I have received numerous emails from dumbfounded newbies. And the reason very experienced reefers locally are now amazed at the results. And even LFS's have added refugiums to their systems.

Dumb. If you can grow this plant life, your system is eutrophic.

They have been told the only way to keep a reef tank is with all that stuff. Then 6 months-2 years later they find they need a refugium with plant life after all.

Dumb. They didn't need it. Just like they didn't need to set up a system that allowed inorganic N and P to build up in the first place.

As thomas712 at SWF found out. After 2 years of flames on how my methods so terrible, he finally got his nitrates down to undectable levels by adding a refugium.

He could have done it by building means of export that don't require the tank to become eutrophic in the first place to work. :roll:

The simple, cheap, convienant, lassey fair addition of the use of plant life to establish a balanced ecosystem simply trumps everything else.

Rather like your ignorance on the subject.