Evidence-Based Reef Keeping

[Hobster]

I wish you luck in your quest. The long term studies are to time consuming and expensive
The debate over DSB vs BB has gone on for ever and will continue on with no definitive answers. The topic is right up there with what type of lighting is "best" MH, CF, T5 etc.
There hasn't even been a reliable study on the different types of Salts. There are some old ones and some highly controversial ones.
With the amount of variables involved with reef keeping there is no right or wrong. As someone above mentioned, pick someone with a good track record and follow it. Dr Randy, A Calfo, Fenner and others who have been there done that.

PS) I do not consider Randys articles "basic science" his articles are geared towards actually correcting/preventing most of the mistakes made in keeping our tanks up and running. His departure from RC is a great loss.

Here is a good"evidence" thread for some light reading.:lol:
from the begining.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=595109&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

 

[AndyReef]

I am not looking to find someone to follow. I have had great success, and continue to have great success. I am looking for intellectual stimulation and even greater success, as well an evidence-based source available to hobbyists and researchers everywhere so that data can be shared, as well as, all of the anecdotes in these forums. Also, I believe that long term studies that could contribute to this fund of knowledge need not be expensive, Just ongoing. If 50 people enrolled in a study, followed a simple study protocol, and reported their data periodically, the data could periodically be compiled and trends could be found. Even if people dropped out of the study, the results could still be valid.

Also, I think that most of the issues that "will go on forever with no definitive answer" could be answered quite elegantly by following a more scientific approach rather than the current approach of blind shots and anecdotes. Even some retrospective study could be done for almost no cost by properly utilizing the survey feature of reefcentral.

Obviously crunching the numbers, formulating the hypotheses, and analyzing the results isn't for the average hobbyist, but the site has a lot of users that aren't your average hobbyists. I think there are enough bright people that utilize this site to really have a big impact on the quality and efficiency of reefkeeping.

Also, the number of variables involved in reefkeeping is no different than the number ofvariables involved in any biological endeavor. Evidence-based reefkeeping isn't about doing things right or wrong, it is about knowing why something is done, how effective it should be, and perhaps is there a better way.

In medicine, treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis are never (at least they shouldn't be) based strictly on anecdotes. They are based on careful studies of outcome over time. Its quite amazing how often you find that a particular treatment is no better than a placebo, or that the expensive cutting edge treatment doesn't offer a better outcome than the inexpensive simple method.

****This is all hypothetical after this****
Say you found out that corals grown under a 30 cent light bulb from wal-mart did just as well as corals grown under $1000 mh. Would you feel justified in spending the extra money for the same outcome. (assume that the 30 cent bulb is pleasing to the eye and does the shimmer of a MH)?

or

If you could get a 40% increase in the growth of your SPS by using supplement x for one year compared to only a 10% increase in growth with no supplement, would you feel more justified in using that supplement?

****Hypothetical part over****

I am writing this thread mostly to try to plant ideas in people to look at reefkeeping more scientifically and more broadly (not just their tank, or a couple other people's tanks) at the art of reefkeeping overall.

Also, I am trying to get a feel for other people that would be interested in participating in some studies to try to improve reefkeeping as an art.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9486011#post9486011 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AndyReef
Also, I am trying to get a feel for other people that would be interested in participating in some studies to try to improve reefkeeping as an art.

Pick a specific topic of interest that you would like to see researched in the manner your proposing.Then start a thread in the most likely forum for the topic and see where it goes You might just spur something along

 

[dendro982]

I see your point - you are looking for a group for a collective experiment?
If you will find already existing database of this type, please, post the source for other forum members.

 

[Hobster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9486011#post9486011 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AndyReef


****This is all hypothetical after this****
Say you found out that corals grown under a 30 cent light bulb from wal-mart did just as well as corals grown under $1000 mh. Would you feel justified in spending the extra money for the same outcome. (assume that the 30 cent bulb is pleasing to the eye and does the shimmer of a MH)?

Funny you should use that as a hypothetical.

I and others actualy use the GE spiral CF bulbs rated at 100w, 6500k using 27w over my refugium. They cost $6 for 2 at WalMart.

 

[dendro982]

Same do I, only one 27W desktop lamp is not an adequate replacement for 400W MH
BTW, 13W U-shaped narrow lamps for worklights and some folding desktop lamps, now are even 7,000K (at HD).

 

[carib]

and god bless you all.

 

[lvreefer]

Plain and simple, it is next to impossible to have a CONTROLLED environment to facilitate multiple reefs for comparison. Even putting the same species of coral in two separate containers will yield different results. Even if you could, how would it help the aquarist who can not replicate the environment? I do agree that a database based on facts to reference would be a great idea. However, even the leading environmental scientist can’t agree on certain topics. Here are some not so common .edu links
CMBC
CMBB
WorldWide Marine Institutes
REN
also
Reef.org
NOAA
GarysReef

 

[AndyReef]

Plain and simple, it is next to impossible to have a CONTROLLED environment to facilitate multiple reefs for comparison. Even putting the same species of coral in two separate containers will yield different results. Even if you could, how would it help the aquarist who can not replicate the environment?

...but what if you put 40 corals of the same species into 40 separate containers, then it would be a little easier to see a difference in results. You are absolutely correct that you won't see results with two. That is just too puny a sample size.

This is precisely why implementing an experimental protocol across many reefkeepers tanks would truly aide the aquarist who cannot replicate other environments. If you test some variable x with some protocol against 50 different reefs you will most definitely see a trend concerning that tested variable. Even if that trend is, that there is no trend. At which point you may question why do at all.

You are absolutely right to assume that you won't have 50 identical results, that isn't what you are looking for. What you want is to see a trend. This then opens up the door for further questioning. If you have 20 people with similar mediocre results, 20 with no results, and 10 with outstanding results, then you can make many statements about that particular variable that has been tested. You could say that 60% of those in the study had positive results, and 40 did not. You could even begin to question what other variables might be at work that contributed to the greater results of the upper 20% if any.

The thing about reefkeeping is that it isn't black and white, right or wrong. There are numerous things in science, most in fact, that don't have this convientient dichotomy. That doesn't mean that study isn't valid. It simply means that results must be interpreted for what they are. And as of right now, there are very few if any comparative results to interpret.

This forum offers a great place to see the results of other reefkeepers, and even a little into their methods. But this does nothing to help eliminate confounding variables.

When my schedule lets up a bit here in the future, I will try to demonstrate this concept.

Bottom line, you do not need the strictness of bench research controls when demonstrating the effectiveness of methods in practice, in fact, its inappropriate. The randomness of practice is the "control".

 

[AndyReef]

Here is a quick and dirty attempt for starters, please participate.

Survey Study

 

[MiddletonMark]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9442704#post9442704 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Ninong
Have you seen this and this and this and this and this and this?

Uh, there's more than a few issues with that research.

The latest paper did not test BB ... but still made conclusions about that method based on other substrate.

Not exactly great scientific procedure, if you ask me. [nevermind a number of other issues]

 

[davidryder]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9442107#post9442107 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by AndyReef
The problem isn't maintaining my own system. Or following the trend on one tank. Logging my own system and knowing what is going on with my water chemistry and my inverts goes without saying. What I am looking to find, or work to create is a resource in which evidence-based studies, and experiments can be found that can definitively say x technique is benefitial or y-technique is not benefitial by looking at a larger number of tanks. In medicine, we don't just blindly try some treatment and then track it in a patient, we generally try to use the treatment in which we have solid evidence-based reviews from a large sample population supporting our treatment methods.

For example; seems there is always a lot of debate on here about BB v. DSB. To my knowledge (which may be wrong, please correct me if so) there hasn't been an experiment reported in which several systems have been set up with proper controls, and a measurable outcome that can say what the benefits of either are one way or the other. There is a vast amount of anecdotal discussion as to which is best, but I haven't seen any raw data supporting either.

This is just one example. Other evidence that I would be interested in seeing would compare levels of waterflow, frequency and volume of water changes, etc.

Understandably, our reefs are complex systems that are trying to simulate to a sufficient degree the conditions of the natural environments in which our inhabitants are found. But is that the best method for best growth and least problem? I know that many reefkeepers have excellent results with some very unnatural conditions, for example outrageously high levels of calcium.

I doubt it dude. Much is still unknown about this hobby and I have waged the same quest as you when I started this hobby. I was tired of reading conflicting information, and people providing advice based on anecdotal evidence. The best you will probably get is some sort of correlation-based studies.