Water changes too frequent

[Anonymous]

But, your idea of 'working' is unacceptable. The lives of these animals are in your hands, and your survival rate track record would get you arrested on Animal Cops (if they cared about fish and corals). These creatures are survivors, and try their best to adapt to your poor conditions. Sure, your methods are cheap for you, but awful for them.

Oh how so. 6 years not long enough? two years on my current tank?

Or are your referring to all those initial losses in my reef before I added the macros. Those losses were due to this industry not informing me of the presence of macros. Fish and corals have lived for two years since the addition of macros.

Meanwhile 6 years in a previous salt tank and fw also.

So what is acceptable? Does a say tang have to live for 8 years before that is acceptable?

I'll let the readers determine if two years currently and 6-8 years previously are acceptable lifespans.

 

[Anonymous]

I dont do a wc to correct parameters but for maintenance as you would your car, home, etc..If you had a cat do expect that overtime the feces will dissolve therefore no changin of the litter?

 

[Anonymous]

The way I look at it is the earth does not need a 10% air or water change every two weeks. All it needs is light from the sun.

For at least the 5th time - that shows a shocking lack of understanding about how the planet works.

Since this is your starting point, and you are incorrect, there is simply no reason to entertain the rest of your ideas.

 

[Anonymous]

6mo for an animal that could out live you is unacceptable and yes tangs if they can live up to 8yrs in home aquaria, yeah its unacceptable...

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.reefs.org/library/article/t_brightbill_wc.html

May be older but still solid info.

Study those charts closely. Notice how they approach but do not touch the optimum value

Water changes have helped many people for years.

they have helped them mask underlying causes. Again the idea is to get a system that maintains parameters without our interfering water changes.

Bob will never realize this as he is not willing to invest a small amount of money into his tank to care for the animals he buys and then replaces like it is nothing when they die.

Money is not the issue. Stable optimum operation is. The problem with this statement is the fish have very long lives. Again 6 years continuous operation and descendants for the original two fish. Unless you are pointing the losses I suffered before adding the macros to my system.

 

[coralfarmin]

I'll bite the bullet here, I cant rember the last water change I made(years) or the last time I bought a test kit.

My new commercial system will require them since I'll be baggin orders every day

 

[Anonymous]

6mo for an animal that could out live you is unacceptable and yes tangs if they can live up to 8yrs in home aquaria, yeah its unacceptable...

Where did I say 6 months?

So regardless of how long my fish live and what my water parameters are it is just unacceptable.

Just as posters on other boards were telling me two years. ago

Now it is 8 years to be acceptable.

it is my hope that every newbie to reefing read these types of posts

bottom line. Unless I do it a certain way (in this case water changes) it is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the results.

 

[Anonymous]

Or are your referring to all those initial losses in my reef before I added the macros. Those losses were due to this industry not informing me of the presence of macros. Fish and corals have lived for two years since the addition of macros.

People who start with algae scrubbers have also experienced the loss you describe. People lose animals in the first year of any system for myriad reasons - regardless of the kind of set up they run. I find it reckless that you are advocating that people start a system in a way that you have never started one.

The use of macros is well known and prevalent in this 'industry'. And decent book has information on planted 'fuges, and internet boards are thick with such discussion.

I find it shocking that you are using post hoc ergo proctor hoc as support for your ideas. As a 'rocket scientist' I can't understand how you are unaware of the pitfalls of such reasoning.

 

[Anonymous]

bottom line. Unless I do it a certain way (in this case water changes) it is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the results.

You polarization of the discussion to make your arguments sound better is disingenuous.

 

[Anonymous]

Or are your referring to all those initial losses in my reef before I added the macros. Those losses were due to this industry not informing me of the presence of macros. Fish and corals have lived for two years since the addition of macros.

People who start with algae scrubbers have also experienced the loss you describe. People lose animals in the first year of any system for myriad reasons - regardless of the kind of set up they run. I find it reckless that you are advocating that people start a system in a way that you have never started one.

The use of macros is well known and prevalent in this 'industry'. And decent book has information on planted 'fuges, and internet boards are thick with such discussion.

I find it shocking that you are using post hoc ergo proctor hoc as support for your ideas. As a 'rocket scientist' I can't understand how you are unaware of the pitfalls of such reasoning.

Actually I have started system with this method. Just the 55g was not is all.

I presume you are referring to the fallacy is happend therefore was the cause. I guess your systems suffer from the same fallacy. Should apply to water changes also.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, I do water changes when I remember - every 4 months or so. However, I have a 150 gallon show tank with a 180 gallon sump, so I think the larger water volume gives me a good margin of error.


Oh, I am doing more water changes recently because I pulled my sand bed.

 

[Anonymous]

bottom line. Unless I do it a certain way (in this case water changes) it is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the results.

You polarization of the discussion to make your arguments sound better is disingenuous.

I'll let the readers decide which side is polarizing. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Or are your referring to all those initial losses in my reef before I added the macros. Those losses were due to this industry not informing me of the presence of macros. Fish and corals have lived for two years since the addition of macros.

People who start with algae scrubbers have also experienced the loss you describe. People lose animals in the first year of any system for myriad reasons - regardless of the kind of set up they run. I find it reckless that you are advocating that people start a system in a way that you have never started one.

The use of macros is well known and prevalent in this 'industry'. And decent book has information on planted 'fuges, and internet boards are thick with such discussion.

I find it shocking that you are using post hoc ergo proctor hoc as support for your ideas. As a 'rocket scientist' I can't understand how you are unaware of the pitfalls of such reasoning.

Actually I have started system with this method. Just the 55g was not is all.

You have not started a reef system with that 'method'. You added the the macros 6 months in. Please - FW and FOWLR are not the same as a reef, so please don't bring them up again.

I presume you are referring to the fallacy is happend therefore was the cause.

It happened after therefore was caused by - we have been over this many times before. You added macros and assumed it was them that made all the difference. You continually ignore the fact that many people have had the same results as you WITHOUT adding the macros.

I guess your systems suffer from the same fallacy. Should apply to water changes also.

A fallacy applies to reasoning not a system. That said, you don't see me claiming that water changes are a panacea for anything that ills a tank. You also don't see me recommending my system as the only way to go. Making changes to a stable system is different than making changes to a new system that is not stable yet.
I work very hard not to use fallacies in my reasoning, and I think you would be hard pressed to find me using one on this board without a disclaimer.

 

[Anonymous]

bottom line. Unless I do it a certain way (in this case water changes) it is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the results.

You polarization of the discussion to make your arguments sound better is disingenuous.

I'll let the readers decide which side is polarizing. :lol:

Only you Bob. You are the only one that keeps insisting that other people are saying that anything besides what they say is 'totally unacceptable'.

 

[HClH2OFish]

Or are your referring to all those initial losses in my reef before I added the macros. Those losses were due to this industry not informing me of the presence of macros. Fish and corals have lived for two years since the addition of macros.

People who start with algae scrubbers have also experienced the loss you describe. People lose animals in the first year of any system for myriad reasons - regardless of the kind of set up they run. I find it reckless that you are advocating that people start a system in a way that you have never started one.

The use of macros is well known and prevalent in this 'industry'. And decent book has information on planted 'fuges, and internet boards are thick with such discussion.

I find it shocking that you are using post hoc ergo proctor hoc as support for your ideas. As a 'rocket scientist' I can't understand how you are unaware of the pitfalls of such reasoning.

Actually I have started system with this method. Just the 55g was not is all.

I presume you are referring to the fallacy is happend therefore was the cause. I guess your systems suffer from the same fallacy. Should apply to water changes also.

Your other tanks aren't reef tanks Bob...hence irrelevant..you seem to keep missing this point

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, PLB is right in his calculation. Removing 10% of water does not change the concentration of nitrate in the tank, but it does reduce the amount of the total nitrate by 10%. So the swing is 10%, assume you don't have any nitrate in the water you added to the tank.

THanks for the tip on the quoting by the way...this will be the test

You're math may be right...the way I was thinking of it was like this-if i have 6 apples, and I take 3 away, then add 3 back, the rate of exchange or difference from beginning point would be 6. Even though I have only subtracted 3 parts, I am adding a completely new set of 3 parts, making a total change to 6...
I have no idea if I am thinking the right way or you are!!! lol...any super genius math majors here at all?

In any event, Bob, I think what you are proposing COULD work, and I would never really say anything isn't possible. There may be a perfect symbiotic relationship and combination of things that would be self sustaing, and I don't think there are any one way in this hobby that is the only way to do it. Hell, I've got a 60 hex that most people would say is overstocked, but it works for me because I think my methods are being refined. But it isn't infallible. I've lost a fish here and there because of ich mostly, and it probably is from overcrowding, but I think I'm getting a good bio thing going that I may never have another death due to anything but old age, and I was getting bored with having 4 fish only.

The part I don't get is you talk alot about what youre doing, yet you never show proof of it. Show me just a couple of RECENT pictures...like last few weeks even of your tank as it is today. Thats all I ask. If what you truly propose is a new way of thinking, and it happened to be MY idea...damn! I'd be posting pics, facts to support my way of thinking, and posting pics of my progress. I am glad you seem like such a nice guy that is willing to discuss this without being a jerk. I am just truly interested if your method can work, but I'm not going to risk my tank without proof.
Thanks!

 

[Anonymous]

I want to apologize for my, and others, terseness regarding Bob.

Pretty much this exact conversation has happened at least 20 times, probably more, since he joined RDO (and the same sorts of conversations have been going on with Bob longer than that on other boards). People have tried every tactic to have a meaningful discussion with him, from slow and steady point by point debate to simple flaming, but none of it seems to get through to him. What is worse, he continually mischaracterizes other peoples arguments and responses to his points.

Many are frustrated with him, but want to counter his strange advice and odd reasoning.

 

[Anonymous]

I think Bob seems like a nice guy, at least he is respectful in his stance. I'm glad everyone here is cool enough to discuss this without being too personal as well. The only thing that bothers me, and I think a lot of people here, is I can understand what you are proposing Bob, and I can probably even agree with it because it does, in its own way make sense. However, not enough sense that without real proof, I would decide to risk what I have, and I feel already works very well based on the experiences of thousands of people a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than me, then to try a method that you simply cannot prove without pictures and real, hard core data.
Thank you for sharing it Bob, but really, and I do NOT want this to sound mean, but put up or shut up for lack of a better term.
Thanks

 

[coralfarmin]

I'll bite the bullet agin...a long time ago when I used to try to keep up frequent water changes things just stayed out of wack in my "humble" case I found that incorperation of a 40 gal steralite with a 6" sand bed and 20 mangroves that branched and literaly root filled the container, in the sand, above the sand and out grew it literaly worked alot better,note I am aginst pruning them and instead trained the tops with twist ties like bozi's

it looked like a forest canopy under the cabinet, I had to cut them down literaly since the root system was so massive

 

[Anonymous]

Thank you for sharing it Bob, but really, and I do NOT want this to sound mean, but put up or shut up for lack of a better term.
Thanks

We tried that already.
http://www.reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=65003