<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14849093#post14849093 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by liveforphysics
I disagree with 4 of the 8 points in this article.
Waterchanges delay cycle:
"Cycled" is just another word for dynamic balance between various compound evolution, and it's breakdown to lower thermodynamic states(and less hazardous) via various bio-driven process.
Adding a metered quanity of Ammonia to the tank daily would be a much more productive alternative than waterchanges. It also creates bacteria levels in a ready state to keep fish.
It has nothing to do with bacteria in the water. It has to do with not distrubing the various parts of the cycle from reaching a dynamic equilibrium.
IMHO, you are recomending a foolish waste of resources.
Some of that argument is indeed true but, as you stated, it is a bio-driven event and adding ammonia to an already rich environment is not needed. As LR cures it releases vast amounts of ammonia into the water column. Far more than will be needed when the tank is fully cycled and more that the attached biofilm will be able to readily process in a steady state condition.
The idea of doing water changes in a cycling tank is to lessen the overall impact of dissolved organics on the environment. As the cycle comes to completion many of the bacteria spawned by the high nutrient levels will perish and their decomposition will fuel forthcoming algae outbreaks.
Reduced Salinity:
Running lower(not hypo) salinity in a FO isn't about harming bad protozoa. It's about a reduction in the osmotic stress energy budget of the fish. The higher the salinity, the more energy the fish expends in maintaining it's own blood. It has been proven many times that the oxygen demand and metabolic energy needs of a fish are reduced as the solution approaches isosmotic to the fish's blood. If a fish is weak, starving, recovering from shipping stress, mal-nurished, etc, then a lower salinity enviroment leaves them with more energy budget left for other processes, including immune system. If you wish to see evidence of this:
Nordlie F.G. 1978. The influence of environmental salinity on respiratory oxygen demands in the euryhaline teleost, Ambassis interrupta Bleeker. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A 59:271-274.
Woo N.Y.S. and Chung K.C. 1995. Tolerance of Pomacanthus imperator to hypoosmotic salinities: changes in body composition and hepatic enzyme activities. J. Fish Biol. 47(1):70-81.
Wu R.S.S. and Woo N.Y.S. 1983. Tolerance of hypo-osmotic salinities in thirteen species of adult marine fish: implications for estuarine fish culture. Aquaculture 32:175-181.
In dealing with energy budgets of a marine fish we must remember that their bodies are acclimated to a certain salinity. Fish do not move into brackish estuarine waters for the most part and certainly not reef fish. Forcing them to undergo arbitrary hyposalinic conditions is, in my view, not conducive to proper acclimation and certainly does not inhibit the infections caused by parasitic protozoa.
Live sand:
I agree that packaged live sand is absolutely not needed, and that any approprate sand and a single piece of live rock will be adquate. However, most all brands of live sand are just scoops of sand from an ocean, and do amazingly include live animals like bristle worms and various pods. I've seen this myself from poking through the contents of a bag of caribsea. The durability of these animals is so tough, during a tank moving process, I once left my old sandbed in trash sacks in an unheated garage in winter for 2 months. Upon opening to wash out the sand and re-use, I was amazed to see various live worms, pods, and even hermit crabs that were still alive in the sand.
I will need to bow to your observations on that matter. In most cases the packaged LS I have seen is mainly dry aragonites that were submerged and seed with prilled bacteria. They were devoid of things like bristle worms or other sandbed invertebrate. It may be that I just selected an overage batch.
Moonlights:
I never had snail or coral spawning events until I used them. Not going to try to debate anything, could be purely coindinces, but I personally do think they effect the behavior of certian animals. Certianly not critical for a newb starting out, and I have no disgreement with you putting this point in your article, though I'm a bit confused as to why. If it offers an enhancement of asthetic effect at minimal cost, I don't see why it wouldn't be viewed as a great thing for anyone keeping a tank for asthetic purposes (newbs).
Snails breed readily in most reef tanks. Sexual reproduction of coral in a reef tank is, thank goodness, fairly rare. Even an experienced reefkeeper would be severely challenged to raise corals spawned after such an event.
Activated Carbon:
"Carbon improves water quality and reduces bioload on the tank, so I would say to go ahead and use it."
Carbon does not reduce bioload on a tank... It has it's purposes, and is fine in moderation. It's useful lifespan in a tank is over extremely quickly, and is nothing to rely on as an alternative to bio-processes.
There are many dissolved substances that can be used by bacteria to fuel growth and reproduction. Although not a major player in reducing food sources for microorganisms carbon does reduce this loading to some extent, especially when changed on a routine basis
Other than those points, I enjoy your writing style, and I thought the rest of the article was spot-on.
Best Wishes,
-Luke
on the caliber of newbie we are getting today they are reading waterkeepers columns and forming some great questions.
:rolleye1: :rollface: 
