I don't think the experiments matter. I think we'll always have anecdote and correlation regarding nitrates, phosphates, etc. and their levels as related to coral health and color. However, as has been pointed out over and over in this thread, each tank is different and will/may react differently to whatever change or adjustment may be made to have a desired effect, even if the "science" tells you what should happen.
What we do have are strong correlations and trends though. There are enough people on here to define these trends and correlations with a certain amount of confidence. Is it proof, no, but it is the best we have in my opinion and the best we'll get. I would definitely say that Thales' tank and his phosphate levels are approaching two standard deviations from the mean. Based on everything I've seen and read, a low to undetectable level of phosphate and nitrate are the norm for SPS tanks. Those with 0 readings of both can have a colourful tank and may be on the opposite side of the trend line, but maybe they've packed their tank with SPS that thrive in ULNS, and on the flip side the person with detectable phosphate and nitrate have millis, caps, and stags that seem to enjoy or tolerate higher nutrient levels. If I were to advise someone else, I would suggest they follow the mean (low nutrients including phosphate and nitrate), as that is most likely where their tank will be - but maybe it will fall away from the mean.
Away from the mean the art part comes in. Careful observation, and I mean almost studious observation, is often overlooked in reefkeeping. Compared to the science, art plays a large role in this discussion and I think is the reason why we'll never have scientific answers for the reefkeeper (compared to a scientific study in a lab with a control and one independent variable as Thales has suggested). The "Art" is to watch your tank closely and decide what, if any, adjustments are to me made. I think every experienced reefkeeper on here will tell you that after a while, they don't really need to test too often for their parameters - they can tell through observation that things are out of skew. The art is also to then take a course of action that you feel is best warranted - maybe everyone is telling you need to do Plan A on this forum, but really you think Plan B is the best path, and therefore that is the one you should go down even if conventional wisdom and other reefers are telling you otherwise.
One or two tweaks in a reef tank, a complex "closed" system that reaches its own biological equilibrium, is akin to chaos' theory butterfly effect, where one small change can cause a chain reaction of events and trying to understand the what and how becomes almost impossible. So everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Couldn't agree more, Jordan..
What is a new reefer or even a seasoned reefer to take away from this thread?
Mostly, to be skeptical... Even of his thread..
Thales' tank cannot be used as evidence of anything and especially cannot be used by a newbe as an example of how to keep his/her reef..
A new tank (let's say less than 1 1/2 years old), I suspect would fail horribly if it had Thales' water chemistry..
This thread is for educational purposes and what it teaches is that there are many common practices in this hobby that generally get people closer to succes but sometimes (ok, Thales, perhaps even often) there are practices that produce good results that seem to go against conventional wisdom.
For a new reefer, conventional wisdom is the best there is at the moment and conventional wisdom suggests controlled levels of n and p produce better results than uncontrolled n and p..
In a mature system (I'd say 4-5 years old) when sponges, bacteria, microfauna and whatever else populates a system and it has established some sort of solid mini ecosystem, it seems that higher levels of n and p aren't as impacting on the health of the inhabitants.. Providing there is a multitude of algae grazers..
A new reefer or even an experienced one dealing with a set back must read this thread and many others as well as whatever research he/she cares to find and come up with a plan.. This plan will be based (more often than not) on conventional wisdom and even though some will disagree, more often than not conventional wisdom is more of a help than a hindrance...
Thales' tank I would argue is more of a hindrance than a help BUT I know Thales is not suggesting that people try to follow his numbers.... That's why this thread is here... To help people think for themselves and to gather up as much varying evidence that fits in with their individual reef keeping ideology and implement the practices he/she feels are best for them... If it doesn't work, they must go back the source of information and formulate a new plan based on what most people do to be successfull.. that's conventional wisdom.. Whether it's scientifically proven or anecdotal, trends in conventional wisdom seem to lead most (maybe only 51%) people to a higher degree of success.
I find that, although this thread is incredibly thought provoking- even eye opening, there is an element of futility to it.. Basically, no matter what you do, you are blind and may fail and you can't trust anything or any information..
But one has to trust the practices that lead the majority of people to some level of success and at the moment this comes from anecdotal evidence and not science..
