nutrients and SPS corals.

[Allmost]

Of course it is based on my one tank. I don't understand why you insist that I am making any sort of general statement. I have not done any such thing.

thanks, thats all I wanted to hear.

the qoutes I posted above made it sound like you are making a general statement. so thank you for taking the time to clarify.

 

[Allmost]

+1. By the replies in this thread it seems it was targeting a specific individual/thread, why not continue the discussion in that thread instead of creating a new one?

clarifying his reply to mine which read :
"I am almost always leery of whenever someone says 'everyone says' or 'everyone knows', as it is almost never the case. It is not the case that everyone thinks that corals react to a change in nutrients, especially regarding coral coloration, nor is it clear what you mean by 'react' or 'change'. "
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22369032&postcount=359

and as proven by this unscientific pole ... at least everyone here thinks that way

not meant to be a shot ... but rather a simple poll of ppl who read this sub-forum, and what they think and observe

 

[Thales]

clarifying his reply to mine which read :
"I am almost always leery of whenever someone says 'everyone says' or 'everyone knows', as it is almost never the case. It is not the case that everyone thinks that corals react to a change in nutrients, especially regarding coral coloration, nor is it clear what you mean by 'react' or 'change'. "
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22369032&postcount=359

and as proven by this unscientific pole ... at least everyone here thinks that way

At the time of this posting, 2 people have voted no, and 4 porcupine. Not everyone, and not everyone here. Such a distinction might seem pedantic to some, but I think it is important.

 

[jroovers]

Of course it is based on my one tank. I don't understand why you insist that I am making any sort of general statement. I have not done any such thing.

And? Where have I asked anyone to follow my methodology? And I have actually made a point that people not follow my methodology because we don't have enough information on what is going on.

That said, I know several tanks that are fantastic that consistently run high phosphate and high nitrate, but they don't post on RC (RC isn't the only place that reef tanks are discussed). I suppose my main point is that there may be reason to take a new look at some of our standard numbers.

This is discussed more in an upcoming article.

I think everyone agrees that chasing numbers isn't the way to go - close observation and then making educated guesses one way or the other is. Numbers and test results help guide you, they are not the husbandry law. Nutrient level "standard" numbers are guides, not laws, and I don't think anyone is claiming that.

You support your argument with the fact that there are other high nutrient tanks out there, and therefore our understanding of phosphates and maybe nutrients is therefore flawed, not just based on your experience. I think your thinking is flawed in this regard - there is plenty of evidence and support here stating that you and these other low nutrient tanks are in a very very small minority. For every 2 or 3 tanks you know of out there with high nutrients and colourful SPS that are not on RC, I can easily speculate without any further proof that there are probably 20, 50, if not 100 with low nutrient levels and colourful, growing SPS, to your 1 high nutrient tank. So that aspect of your argument is completely bogus IMO. I don't think people with higher nutrient tanks have been bullied off the forums and/or are ashamed to post their true nutrient levels for fear of persecution. Yes, your tank is fantastic growthwise and colourwise, and you have phosphates that are high and buck the trend, but at least in the same breath acknowledge that what we do understand today (not in the future or later date), strongly indicates that low nutrients are beneficial to growing and colouring up SPS. This is based on the husbandry practices of a lot of different individuals, all separated by distance with their own personal closed systems. Call it a trend, correlation, anecdotal evidence, or plain old common sense, anyway you package it the vast majority of individuals here have had that experience.

 

[cugly]

I think its stability and whatever works for your own tank evrry tank is different. .keep it stable just like what's been said above chasing numbers sometimes causes more of a problem by over correcting something that sometimes is not even a problem..adaptability if its stable it will adapt when the changes are slow for the most part specially for a coral tbats been in that system for a while..but any abrupt rapid change it will cause an issue we that all the time..I move my stuff to a new tank and everything start dying is an example...stability maturity and your own way of doing things to know how your livestock react is the key ...

 

[Thales]

I think everyone agrees that chasing numbers isn't the way to go - close observation and then making educated guesses one way or the other is. Numbers and test results help guide you, they are not the husbandry law. Nutrient level "standard" numbers are guides, not laws, and I don't think anyone is claiming that.

Right. At the same time, not everyone agrees, or we wouldn't have so many people chasing numbers.

You support your argument with the fact that there are other high nutrient tanks out there, and therefore our understanding of phosphates and maybe nutrients is therefore flawed, not just based on your experience.

Nope. "I suppose my main point is that there may be reason to take a new look at some of our standard numbers. " No 'therefore' in there, and no 'is' in there. I am being very careful as not to make specific claims.

I think your thinking is flawed in this regard - there is plenty of evidence and support here stating that you and these other low nutrient tanks are in a very very small minority.

Counter examples to the status quo are counter examples - and will be compelling to some, and not to others. This is how change occurs. Things that have previously been in a small minority include the use of phosphate adsorbing media, Deep Sand Beds, Bare Bottom Tanks, Protein Skimmers, Skimmerless systems, dosing amino acids, LED lights, MH lights, feeding corals, and more. Not only does common sense often change based on new information, but the old common sense is often shown to be wrong.

Yes, your tank is fantastic growthwise and colourwise, and you have phosphates that are high and buck the trend, but at least in the same breath acknowledge that what we do understand today (not in the future or later date), strongly indicates that low nutrients are beneficial to growing and colouring up SPS.

Thanks!
I have stated similar several times in the other thread, and I say it with more qualifiers. In talking about a difference, is it necessary to continually repeat the status quo? Perhaps it is, but it seems so cumbersome that I balk at including it so often. In the upcoming article there is a section called 'what we are and are not saying'.

Thanks again, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

[jroovers]

Right. At the same time, not everyone agrees, or we wouldn't have so many people chasing numbers.

I think you need to consider the "consensus" view, not the 1 in a 100 who doesn't agree. There are lots of people here who say they have been guilty of chasing numbers, and no longer do that. I'm sure many of those same people have committed other reef offenses, myself included, such as putting tangs in small tanks and accidentally killing livestock through human error one way or another. Chalk it up to learning. That said, I think the consensus view needs to be considered, from a reefer with a relatively experienced hand. If you want to include the 6-month newb who is chasing numbers, so be it.

Nope. "I suppose my main point is that there may be reason to take a new look at some of our standard numbers. " No 'therefore' in there, and no 'is' in there. I am being very careful as not to make specific claims.

So what are you saying? Is this an exercise in semantics? I find your posts a bit difficult to decipher as they seem to follow a circular argument pattern. So either you think the standard numbers need a new look, or the don't, or the third answer is maybe? Is this grade school? Please circle A, B, or C.

Counter examples to the status quo are counter examples - and will be compelling to some, and not to others. This is how change occurs. Things that have previously been in a small minority include the use of phosphate adsorbing media, Deep Sand Beds, Bare Bottom Tanks, Protein Skimmers, Skimmerless systems, dosing amino acids, LED lights, MH lights, feeding corals, and more. Not only does common sense often change based on new information, but the old common sense is often shown to be wrong.

I agree with you that examples counter to the status quo are compelling, I don't think anyone here doesn't find your results anything but. Your response here again confounds me, as I thought we have established that there aren't any "rights" or "wrongs". Different husbandry practices can lead to similar results. Incrementally with time, practices will change and improve. That said, in this case, what you are talking about is very speculative, and maybe there is something to it, but it appears to me you are falling prey to confirmation bias.

Thanks!
I have stated similar several times in the other thread, and I say it with more qualifiers. In talking about a difference, is it necessary to continually repeat the status quo? Perhaps it is, but it seems so cumbersome that I balk at including it so often. In the upcoming article there is a section called 'what we are and are not saying'.

I don't understand what you are saying... you don't want to repeat the status quo because it is too boring? I think the status quo is the status quo because that is what most people find is helpful in growing a thriving reef... that is what the average reefer is trying to accomplish, not doing something that is out of the norm... I don't see too many threads asking "I really want my SPS to grow, but Tommy over here is using GFO, so I can't go that route, because he already has dibs. What can I do?" As a person of science, I thought you would have an appreciation for structure, methodology, and the status quo - after all the scientific method is inherently "status quo" so there is a basis for reliability and validity and a framework from which comparisons can be made.

Thanks again, and I appreciate the discussion.

Ditto

 

[Thales]

I think you need to consider the "consensus" view, not the 1 in a 100 who doesn't agree. There are lots of people here who say they have been guilty of chasing numbers, and no longer do that. I'm sure many of those same people have committed other reef offenses, myself included, such as putting tangs in small tanks and accidentally killing livestock through human error one way or another. Chalk it up to learning. That said, I think the consensus view needs to be considered, from a reefer with a relatively experienced hand. If you want to include the 6-month newb who is chasing numbers, so be it.

I am considering all views, and I am unsure why you would think I am not. I think most of this confusion stems from a discussion who though I was arguing something I wasn't.

Previously you said everyone, so that necessarily includes 6 month newbs. If you didn't mean everyone, I wish you would have used different words. Using everyone is a form of the fallacy of argument from authority, and trying to stop fallacy is a avocation of mine.

So what are you saying? Is this an exercise in semantics? I find your posts a bit difficult to decipher as they seem to follow a circular argument pattern. So either you think the standard numbers need a new look, or the don't, or the third answer is maybe? Is this grade school? Please circle A, B, or C.

The words used are important and your rephrasing of what I wrote turned it into something I didn't mean. Is that an exercise in semantics? Only in the sense that changing the words changes the meaning, and if you change the meaning, you aren't clocking what was originally said.
'I don't know' and 'maybe' are great positions to take when we aren't sure of something.

I agree with you that examples counter to the status quo are compelling, I don't think anyone here doesn't find your results anything but. Your response here again confounds me, as I thought we have established that there aren't any "rights" or "wrongs". Different husbandry practices can lead to similar results. Incrementally with time, practices will change and improve. That said, in this case, what you are talking about is very speculative, and maybe there is something to it, but it appears to me you are falling prey to confirmation bias.

I am not sure how I can be falling for prey to confirmation bias when I am not really putting forth a hypothesis. Any hypothesis I have has been presented pretty blatantly as speculative - ""I suppose my main point is that there may be reason to take a new look at some of our standard numbers".
And remember I was responding to you saying "I think your thinking is flawed in this regard - there is plenty of evidence and support here stating that you and these other low nutrient tanks are in a very very small minority."

I don't understand what you are saying... you don't want to repeat the status quo because it is too boring?

Not really, just that it isn't really germane to say it over and over again. Talking about something that isn't the status quo does not mean that the status quo is rejected. I don't think I need to put a disclaimer on every post. I could be wrong.

I think the status quo is the status quo because that is what most people find is helpful in growing a thriving reef... that is what the average reefer is trying to accomplish, not doing something that is out of the norm... I don't see too many threads asking "I really want my SPS to grow, but Tommy over here is using GFO, so I can't go that route, because he already has dibs. What can I do?"

I am not sure what that last part is about. That is great about what the average reefer is trying to accomplish, but I don't think that is what the other thread is about.

As a person of science, I thought you would have an appreciation for structure, methodology, and the status quo - after all the scientific method is inherently "status quo" so there is a basis for reliability and validity and a framework from which comparisons can be made.

Yes, but... the scientific method is also just as much about questioning the status quo. How wonderful would it be if it turned out that spending time and money on something that people think is necessary, turned out to not be necessary?
And, there has been plenty of discussion in that other thread about the status quo, and where the status quo came from.

Ditto

 

[Moser]

Ah, I am guessing this means me - I have never made the argument that nutrients don't effect corals.

+1

Hence my earlier post!. We all know nutrients effect coral growth and coloration. What we don't know is in which direction!...... Ref Thales' tank!.

Mo

 

[Allmost]

ok well the majority wins

do we run porcupine in an upflow reactor or passive in a bag in sump ?

thanks for the participation and the discussion everyone

Mo and Thales ... that is all I asked " We all know nutrients effect coral growth and coloration" and that was it I did not ask which direction nor was interested in that ...

thales posted it doesnt, which is incorrect and I am glad this thread could clear up what he meant which was mis understood due to bad wording and sentence structure I guess.

 

[Thales]

thales posted it doesnt,

No he didn't.

 

[Acronic]

The opening statement is much to vague for a definitive yes, no or porcupine answer.

The processes happening are vastly complex, arguing over a yes or no, he said she said is futile and detracts from the knowledge one could potentially gain from these thought provoking discussions. Lets call a spade a spade so that "everyone", or "99.9%" of us can get on with it

If Rhinohippopotelephatamouse was an option, you'd have my vote.

 

[Allmost]

poll results, and others opinion point to a different result ...

I fine tune my carbon dosing, based on amount of algae that grows on the front glass.

to me, that is a sign of nutrients. and my corals get effected by it. [good or bad is not the point of this thread]

so the result is that most hobbiests on here, do see a difference when nutrients change.

thats all

 

[Allmost]

No he didn't.

sure

"It is not the case that everyone thinks that corals react to a change in nutrients, especially regarding coral coloration,"

so qoute above from you, was not understood correctly by me [and some others ?] so thank you for clarifying
its possible that it was not worded correctly, but Ill assume it was me


and looking at it in a technical point of view, you were actually correct .... it is NOT the case that everyone thinks that corals react to a change in nutrients ... only 88% feel that way ...
I would not say that 88% of voters here observed incorrectly.

 

[ganjero]

I fine tune my carbon dosing, based on amount of algae that grows on the front glass.

to me, that is a sign of nutrients. and my corals get effected by it. [good or bad is not the point of this thread]

Allmost - while you are probably 100% right this statement sounds like a personal opinion that should not be used as a fact.

I think is a little faulty trying to support the argument of the effects of nutrients when you said you don't test for nutrients in your tank, but just go by guessing the nutrient changes based on what your are seeing. :wildone:

 

[Allmost]

sentence started with "to me", which prety much makes it my opinion

when amount of algae growth increases ... it is a sing of nutrients increase. talking specifically about algae grown on front glass .

88% on here agreed, that when algae on front glass increases, changes in SPS corals "looks" are observed. read the "manual" for carbon dosing


not sure why I repeated myself again but hope that helps. you can continue being critical of my writing or wording to get away from the main point though.

 

[ganjero]

I just made an observation, IMO not testing = not a fact

IME nutrients do affect my SPS corals, higher levels stunt the growth, too low the colors fade, etc.

However I do not agree with this statement, which BTW was not the question for the poll, "88% on here agreed, that when algae on front glass increases, changes in SPS corals "looks" are observed. read the "manual" for carbon dosing". For whatever reason the growth of algae on the glass of my tank doesn't seem to be affected by the nutrient changes, maybe I do not have the same type of "glass" algae that you have in your tank.

 

[Allmost]

IME nutrients do affect my SPS corals,

thanks for your participation

that was the question you answered.

 

[Acronic]

My corals are affected by the SG of my water too

What "nutrients" are we talking about here? Organic nitrogen, phosphorous, inorganic, bacterial, fauna?

Of course our corals are affected by these things. The real question is what and why.

 

[Allmost]

Of course our corals are affected by these things. The real question is what and why.

of course ... and those are not so easy to answer even controlled experiments would not be easy to perform.

this was just to clarify one simple point ...