proposal for an experiment: wanna play?

[Sk8r]

I would ordinarily not suggest a radical tank experiment in the newbie forum, but I can see no downside to this except better water with no harm to either fish or corals. And I can't find any other RC population MORE apt to have new fish.

Proposition: that ich and disease may be significantly less common in tanks, reef or FoWlr, where water quality is equal to that of a coral reef. (I am hoping those who get involved in this will see a benefit of less ich and other disease.)

what I'm asking, for anybody interested in trying this, is that everybody get the following: a live rock only tank, no filter; a skimmer adequate for your tank; no sump ok in smaller tank; a refractometer; ro/di water; a dkh alkalinity test (Salifert or anybody who returns you dkh scale numbers); dkh buffer (I use Kent); calcium test that gives you readings like 390, 420, etc. I use Salifert; a Calcium supplement (I use Kent). 2 part is good.; a digital thermometer; a Magnesium test kit (supplement probably not needed yet); a consistent brand of salt (any salt: just stick with one brand). And a commitment to log your results---with a disposition to be brutally honest about whether you quarantined a fish---or not.

Anybody interested?
What I would ask is that everybody just report in as wanting to try it; ask questions where you may get confused about testing or additives (very, very scant additives, and maybe not needed in FOWLR: hold off on buying calcium additive for FOWLR unless you turn out to need it). Then just go to it. Bring your tank params to those levels, be you reef or FoWLR. And track your progress: note any point at which your tank had to be corrected; note fish health, etc.
And report in how your old fish are doing, how any new fish are doing, what species you have, and whether you are staying disease free.

Kind of a pricey sort of trial, because it bumps you up to reef-quality stuff earlier than most, but if the premise is right it might also save some money.

The params you would need to hit:
1. salinity 1.024-6.
2. alkalinity 8.3-9.3 dkh
3. calcium: 400-420
4. magnesium 1200-1300
5. temperature about 80, give or take 2 degrees in either direction.

Keep your water on those marks and don't let it fluctuate. A topoff unit is an asset in this.

Report in if you have a fish come down with ich, or if you have a new fish and you're satisfied they're NOT coming down with ich or other malady as they get settled. It would be really interesting if we could knock the incidence of ich way, way down. Of course your qt water would be taken from your 'perfect' tank, so you would have that check in qt also. And if you don't qt, well, you know what we advise: but chime in anyway. Here I'm not interested in preaching about quarantine, just finding out what people's results are and how they relate to tanks successful with water quality.

Anyone interested in trying?

 

[greenbean36191]

I'm curious why you assume most tanks don't already represent parameters that could be found on a real reef? Most hobbyists I know already keep their tanks within the normal range for real reefs. Also, how did you decide what the parameters for a "real reef" are? That will vary widely depending which reef you look at. If you're simply looking for the average numbers, then you're not actually representing any real reef these fish came from (and the numbers you've picked don't seem to match the averages anyway). The set of parameters will be unnatural in some regard for almost all of the fish in tank.

IMHO the design of this experiment misses the mark. It makes too many erroneous assumptions about the heterogeneity of parameters, physiological preferences, and even ich strains. There are also an infinite number of variables and I don't see any clear way to quantify results. To really learn anything from this you would need to stock a tank with just fish from a single reef and then run tests with parameters that differed from or matched those found on the real reef.

FWIW, a lot of Angelo Colorni's work with ich has been done in the Red Sea using water straight off the reef to supply the tanks.

 

[Sk8r]

I think all our tanks in the hobby tend to be an arbitrary 'average' promoted by packaged chemicals and equipment available to us; and the market---eg the mixing of, say Caribbean with Pacific species, which may happen in tanker bilges, but not desirably so in the ocean, imho. My point is not to make inroads into reef science or even to figure out a new ich protocol, but to try to figure why some reefers have such persistently rotten 'luck' with their fish/tanks and why others seem, for no readily apparent reason, to fare so much better. I'm not a great believer in luck.

 

[greenbean36191]

I don't think it's luck either, but your ability to get an answer will rely on your ability to spot a pattern. As you've proposed things, IME you're asking a question that's far too complex to show a pattern given the simple experiment.

I suspect the answer lies more with their sources of livestock and stocking choices than with parameters. While hobbyists generally don't keep their parameters near the average, they do tend to keep them within the average ranges.

 

[I'mRisenAquaRat]

Greenbean you need to get a new avatar - I'm tried of taking cold showers.

Who is that anyway?

 

[Sk8r]

Skill in picking livestock certainly is a big item. My thinking in asking the newbie forum is that their average ranges tend to be the widest, what with topoff accidents, not buying supplements or testing beyond the nitrate/ammonia range, hopping from one salt mix to the other by what's available, various start-up kinds of compromises on equipment, tests, trusting in the advertising of various miracle products, etc---there are many, many variables. I was hoping to limit those extraneous incidents as much as possible and see if it IS mostly expertise in fish-picking, or whether a more strictly-defined regimen of suggested water/tank quality could save startup hobbyists some tank losses and, of course, the disillusionment of losing their first fishes.

 

[Agu]

I suspect the answer lies more with their sources of livestock and stocking choices than with parameters.

I would have to agree with that assumption. Buying healthy livestock, quarantining them, and stocking correctly is the real secret to having healthy fish and other critters. (That includes corals too btw)


Granted if parameters go into the toilet all bets are off.

 

[IslandCrow]

I have to agree with greenbean here. There are simply too many variables, plus in maintaining those parameters, you aren't necessarily accurately reflecting a reef. What about other trace elements, natural temperature variations, changes in lighting, bacteria strains, naturally existing plankton, etc. In general, of course, your hypothesis is correct. Maintaining "proper" water parameters is a good thing. As far as the effects of specific parameters on fish health (and I think that's the angle you'd have to attack this from), it would really need to be a very tightly controlled experiment to make any conclusions.

 

[Sk8r]

Ok, several hours and no takers. No problem. Cancel. Erase. Bad idea, cancel the proposal, no offense taken. I think we're coming at this from different POVs and that's ok.