Water changes too frequent

[Anonymous]

righty

I have a proven hypothesis that the addition of crushed oyster shells in a heavily planted marine tank with 5x water flow over the shells raised the calcium level from 250-300ppm to 400ppm. and the calcium level stays at 400ppm.

You have proven nothing. All you have is post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You need more than that for people to give your ideas any credibility.

With a control tank where the clacium remianed at 250-300. same conditions in both tanks including water added. Vertified by another person.

Your control tank is hardly a control. It is different size, started at a different time, has different rocks and sand, and different plants and animals.

The sceintific process to disprove that hypothesis now rests with others.

Your claims and methods are hardly scientific and it is abhorrent that you are trying to hide behind the scientific process.

So Righty to be scientific you now must disprove that hypothesis by makeing your own observations by attempting to duplicate the conditions and testing that hypothesis. Two gallon jars, some oyster shells, some cheato, an undergravel filter, and some oyster shells are all that are needed.

If it is that easy, why don't you do it. Actually, I suggest you start with something simpler like removing the oyster shells and seeing if the level drops. Or the even simpler step of letting us know what the Ca level of your tap water is - I do suggest a better test kit though.

Ball is in your court now.

Bull bob. Don't pawn your weird ideas off on me. You have shown nothing except post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You process is hardly near anything that could be considered scientific. You have no idea what you pH drops to at night. You are using a bad test kit. You are unwilling to do the most basic of experiments to support your ideas. You are making the extreme claims, you need to show the extreme evidence - actually you need to show some basic evidence.

Furthermore, it think it is quite distasteful and telling that you are trying to get me to do your work for you.

 

[Anonymous]

When did you do your last Calcium reading? How often do you do Calcium testing? Do you know the rate your Calcium raised during those "few weeks" it too for your Calcium to raise from the 200s to the 400s? Do you have a graph or the data points of the Calcium readings during that time? You state that your system raised the calcium to 400 ppm while another systems Ca raised to 500 ppm, can you explain the difference in the rise in Ca?

Also, you mentioned again the 1oz Coral to 3-5 Lbs (48-80 oz) of oyster shells. Is that the ratio you need of Coral to oyster shells to maintain your calcium? If, for example, we took Len's tank which, on the conservative side, has 50 times more coral then you, would we need 150-250 pounds of oyster shells? When I say coral I am talking about the high Ca demanding corals.

By the way, most scientists must prove repeatablity in order to prove a cause and effect. You have one tank that has raised the Ca level to one point, a different tank that is being run differently has the Ca level at a different value, and a third that you are claiming to be the control tank is being run differently is at a third value. All three have different stocking levels, are different sizes, basically have very little in common. This is not controlled very well. I don't think many scientists whould accept your conclusion when examining your methods.

 

[Anonymous]

A take on the Scientific Method:

Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi

 

[Anonymous]

The Scentific Method explained:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

 

[Anonymous]

I do a 10% water change every week. I kinda like doing them...and so, I suspect, do my tank buddies.

 

[Anonymous]

When did you do your last Calcium reading? How often do you do Calcium testing? Do you know the rate your Calcium raised during those "few weeks" it too for your Calcium to raise from the 200s to the 400s? Do you have a graph or the data points of the Calcium readings during that time?

I was testing once per week. I basically stopped testing last dec/jan because everything was not changing from week to week. Reviewing my notes the calcium levels did bounce around a bit. like 330 then 400 then 350 before nitrates went to unmeasureable levels. I probably was also getting used to the test kit. I did take two measurements at first. The 400ppm reference tested at 400-425. Then over about 6 weeks or so the calcium rose to 400 and just stopped there.With most weeks at 400 some at 425 and some at 385. Have been there for about a year or so now. Last week I did take measurements for two days after I added 3 6" halimedas which arrived all white and started greening up. Calcium tested at 400 both days.The halimeda has sent out several new coins or leaves. Last week I started using Kalk paste to kill aphasia. Therefore, that would invalidate testing the oyster shells for adding calcium because the kalk would also. I tested the 20g and the 55g today for calcium. The reference tested at 435 ppm, the 20g at 400ppm but the 55g at 1500 ca. You read correct. I had to refil the syringe three times before the pink became blue. Each fill is 500ppm. Obviously someting is goingon the the test, tester or the tank.No precipitate has been noticed.

So you could be correct. the 20g may now be at 400ppm also. That is if you believe the 1500ppm in the 55g. but when CA rose initially, the 20g stayed the previous levels as the 55g rose. and both tanks had been in operation for almost a year before measuring the ca. both hadthe same substraight, salt, water, and macors. Same evaporation rate. The 55g has more bioload with fish, small inverts, softies and a sps.

You state that your system raised the calcium to 400 ppm while another systems Ca raised to 500 ppm, can you explain the difference in the rise in Ca?

Nope. Was not my system. But it did verify the hypothesis "the addition of calcium carbonate source raises calcium". Explaining such a diference is what science is all about. Now new hypothesis can be formed to explain the difference and further the level of understanding.

Also, you mentioned again the 1oz Coral to 3-5 Lbs (48-80 oz) of oyster shells. Is that the ratio you need of Coral to oyster shells to maintain your calcium? If, for example, we took Len's tank which, on the conservative side, has 50 times more coral then you, would we need 150-250 pounds of oyster shells? When I say coral I am talking about the high Ca demanding corals.

Don't know. I was using that just as an example. Again experimentation is needed to test that new hypothesis. but first one must accept that calcium carbonate is being dissolved and added to the system. And it that happens then the only question is how much calcium carbonate is needed to insure the corals have some growth. And how much coral growth results.

By the way, most scientists must prove repeatablity in order to prove a cause and effect. You have one tank that has raised the Ca level to one point, a different tank that is being run differently has the Ca level at a different value, and a third that you are claiming to be the control tank is being run differently is at a third value. All three have different stocking levels, are different sizes, basically have very little in common. This is not controlled very well. I don't think many scientists whould accept your conclusion when examining your methods.

But it still is a submitted observation. PPM calcium does not depend on the size of the tank. The true scientist should be skeptical. Then setup an experiment, duplicating the conditions, increasing the control and accuracy, and submitting their own results. anything less is not scientific.

 

[Anonymous]

The Scentific Method explained:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

Absolutely correct.

Hypothesis: adding crushed oyster shells with 5x water flow through them will raise calcium. Furthere there is suffieicnt plant life in the display with the same light period to maintain nitrates below 10ppm with an active bioload.

test results. calcium rose to and stayed at 390-425ppm with most measurements 400ppm. another tank remained at the initial values of 250-300.

experiment agrees with hypothesis.

Another hobbiest did the same thing and calcium rose also. verification.

Possible new hypothesis: calcium remaines at 400ppm for a year which is ocean values. Possible new hypothesis is calcium will remain at ocean values.

obervation: SPS has growth, halimeda havae new leaves.

Possible new hypothesis, with sufficient calcium carbonate, calcium will be maintained at new ocean values even with increaed calcium consumption of various livestock.

All worthy of new experiments.

But to disprove the original hypothesis you must duplicate the conditions of the original experiment and submit your findings.

 

[Anonymous]

Nice of Bob to ignore me. Not surprised though - it is Bob's M.O. to ignore anything that doesn't support his ideas.

And you are intentionally ignoring the bolded number 5 in Lawdawgs post. I really do think you are trolling.

Hypothesis: adding crushed oyster shells with 5x water flow through them will raise calcium. Furthere there is suffieicnt plant life in the display with the same light period to maintain nitrates below 10ppm with an active bioload.

test results. calcium rose to and stayed at 390-425ppm with most measurements 400ppm. another tank remained at the initial values of 250-300.

experiment agrees with hypothesis.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc.
You were adding other things to the tank at the same time including tap water of apparently untestable and untested calcium content. Experiment inclusive - to be generous.
And, what does plant life have to do with your calcium idea?

Another hobbiest did the same thing and calcium rose also. verification.

Again, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

 

[Anonymous]

righty

I have a proven hypothesis that the addition of crushed oyster shells in a heavily planted marine tank with 5x water flow over the shells raised the calcium level from 250-300ppm to 400ppm. and the calcium level stays at 400ppm.

You have proven nothing. All you have is post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You need more than that for people to give your ideas any credibility.

With a control tank where the clacium remianed at 250-300. same conditions in both tanks including water added. Vertified by another person.

Your control tank is hardly a control. It is different size, started at a different time, has different rocks and sand, and different plants and animals.

The sceintific process to disprove that hypothesis now rests with others.

Your claims and methods are hardly scientific and it is abhorrent that you are trying to hide behind the scientific process.

So Righty to be scientific you now must disprove that hypothesis by makeing your own observations by attempting to duplicate the conditions and testing that hypothesis. Two gallon jars, some oyster shells, some cheato, an undergravel filter, and some oyster shells are all that are needed.

If it is that easy, why don't you do it. Actually, I suggest you start with something simpler like removing the oyster shells and seeing if the level drops. Or the even simpler step of letting us know what the Ca level of your tap water is - I do suggest a better test kit though.

Ball is in your court now.

Bull bob. Don't pawn your weird ideas off on me. You have shown nothing except post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You process is hardly near anything that could be considered scientific. You have no idea what you pH drops to at night. You are using a bad test kit. You are unwilling to do the most basic of experiments to support your ideas. You are making the extreme claims, you need to show the extreme evidence - actually you need to show some basic evidence.

Furthermore, it think it is quite distasteful and telling that you are trying to get me to do your work for you.

OK, first of all, that post rocked.

I just wanted to add that science cannot prove anything. That is not what science is or is about.

 

[coralfarmin]

Bob,please just give up the debate, I'd like to see something more interesting than your boring drama.
Your tank looks like crap, that is a fact.
Do you have a wife or girl friend?I'm sure they will tell you that.
You really should try to improve your tanks appearance before you encourage others to try the same crap.
I not saying your methods dont work, If your goal is to have a crapy lookin tank then you suceeded.
Sorry to be so blatant but you are just relentless with this crap.

 

[Nathanlando]

Hi,

I would love some insight into my water change situation as I must do them almost weekly .. I CANT get my Nitrates down in my 55Gal. Seachem makes a Nitrate reducer.. anyone have any luck or advise?

Nate

 

[Anonymous]

uuughh....I use aquarium pharm test kits...are they really that bad? They were all my LFS had at the time. I bought the master test kit (ph, amm, nittrite, trates) about 6 months ago. They seem to be accurate as when I get my water tested at LFS ( I do these to get a 2nd opinion every once ina while), they use salifert, and readings are the same.
Anyone have experiences of horror that ap was way off?
Thanks!

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I would love some insight into my water change situation as I must do them almost weekly .. I CANT get my Nitrates down in my 55Gal. Seachem makes a Nitrate reducer.. anyone have any luck or advise?

Nate

If you can't get your nitrates down, then you are doing something that will not allow you to do so.
Possible causes are overfeeding, too much of a bioload, not enough water flow/filtration, nitrates in yourreplacement water etc...
The cures are obvious if you look at the possible causes. I had a hard time a while back wih trates...I could not get them below 40ppm.
I cut down feeding, added another powerhead and did a couple of water changes in the same week of 10% each. Cleaned my filter, and vacuumed my cc. My trates are now almost nil.
Good luck, others here more knowledgeable than me may have other suggestions.
PS-I have heard some good things about cleaner clams to eat up nitrates...anyone want to comment on them?

 

[Anonymous]

Water changes are good for a tank. I have tried none, few, and a set routine. From what I have seen and 5-10% wc every week or two will do nothing but good. I am actually getting upset that I missed my weekly 10% last night.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I would love some insight into my water change situation as I must do them almost weekly .. I CANT get my Nitrates down in my 55Gal. Seachem makes a Nitrate reducer.. anyone have any luck or advise?

Nate

As I have stated many many times, nitrates as well as all other parameters and trace elements will not be maintained at optimum level throught partial water changes alone.

Nitrates will be lower with water changes but not 0.0 with any type of bioload providing nitrates.

In order for nitrates to be maintained at 0 or at least undetectable levels, the nitrates must be consumed by the system. I prefer plant life like macros. But either plant life or anaerobic bacteria are needed to get the ntrates down to 0.

I also do not trust any nitrate reducer especially considering the easy to use and inexpensive method of macros.

 

[Natalie]

Ok so I'm most certainly a newbie here, and may be out of my mind for steppin' into this fire, but oh well.

I'm somewhat surprised that I haven't seen (and perhaps its been mentioned in previous discussions which I missed) more focus on the idea of surviving vs. thriving. These are amazing majestic creatures which, in most instances, have been pulled from the ocean for our own pleasure. We owe it to them to give them the best living conditions that we possibly can.

Judging by the tank pics you've so proudly posted, Bob, (yours and the other examples you chose)... these organisms are certainly NOT thriving. They're barely surviving, for crying out loud. An otherwise healthy, strong, resilient creature should probably not die from a single "oops"... unless it was a rather severe one. And in my humble opinion, anyone making such severe mistakes should not be sitting in their little desk chair preachin'.

Can some of the stronger, more resilient species survive with polluted, unchanged water, no skimming, and poor lighting? Sure thing. Life will find a way if it possibly can. Will they thrive? Nope.

Can I survive if I start living on cigarettes, beer, and drive-through and stop working out? Sure thing. But I'll be fat and greasy. Hardly thriving.

Signed,
one newb with enough common sense to see through the garbage.

 

[Anonymous]

A few bucks off garbage, just makes it cheaper garbage...

Im even having trouble that in Bobs tank, things are surviving...(except maybe the macros)

which brings another question..do you even add dechlorinator to your tank or do the macros eleviate that as well?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I would love some insight into my water change situation as I must do them almost weekly .. I CANT get my Nitrates down in my 55Gal. Seachem makes a Nitrate reducer.. anyone have any luck or advise?

Nate

How old is your tank? What is the setup, flow, light, skimmer, etc. What is your feeding and maintainence schedule? Stocking level? You need to give more detail so you can get a good answer.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi,

I would love some insight into my water change situation as I must do them almost weekly .. I CANT get my Nitrates down in my 55Gal. Seachem makes a Nitrate reducer.. anyone have any luck or advise?

Nate

How old is your tank? What is the setup, flow, light, skimmer, etc. What is your feeding and maintainence schedule? Stocking level? You need to give more detail so you can get a good answer.

You might also want to start a new thread on your specific problem Nathan! It will get more attention that way, rather than being tacked unto this discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

Nate -

Start a new thread in the New Reefers Forum and I think you will get more input!

Natalie!

As I have stated many many times, nitrates as well as all other parameters and trace elements will not be maintained at optimum level throught partial water changes alone.

No one ever said they would. You are having yet another argument with no one.