kev apsley
In Memoriam
Thanks, I'll take a look at it
Reef Keeping Misconceptions
- Thread starter kev apsley
- Start date
Thanks, I'll take a look at it
virginiadiver69
New member
That's good Kevin...I got the feeling you could use a laugh.
I'm glad we can part friends.
kev apsley
In Memoriam
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13889345#post13889345 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
That's good Kevin...I got the feeling you could use a laugh.
I'm glad we can part friends.
no worries it's all good! Peace
kev apsley
In Memoriam
nevermind
Last edited:
virginiadiver69
New member
I'm guessing amino acids?
Tang Salad
Algae skeptic
To speak very generally here, the reefers dosing AAs are doing it because they're running an ULNS. This Ultra Low Nutrient Sytem is achieved, again generally, by carbon/bacteria dosing, and not by over-skimming alone.
Hopefully that helps clear up one misconception.
dots
Premium Member
2 years or 20 years in the hobby, there is always something to learn. Moreover, that time is more about the "quality" not the "quantity" when it comes to RC and your participation you two!!
I myself am interested in the culture in this hobby, and sometimes try to pose philisophical social questions about the hobby, that often result in derailings, so I understand.
Life is full of misconceptions as we are very rarely certain to a large degree of accuracy, what we know and what we think we know are indeed correct and true to begin with.
Because this is still a new hobby, and nothing is set in stone, there are a lot of different approaches and theories to what creates "success".
As new information is found and applied, older methods remain and either found to be true/false/circumstancial and are either abandoned, rejected, or modified. But this can be slow to become the norm as people are not usually accepting of change, especially when thier current method appear to be working.
This is a constant cycle happening and misconceptions, which by definition infers an incorrect original theory, means we are getting closer to being "correct". These are good things to have, as long as we continue this constant learning I was mentioning.
This would explain in part the explosive growth in the hobby the last few years........as it has become "easier" to obtain "success".
Perhaps though, our greatest fallacies are that we base our theories on macroscopic views largely through what we see with our eyes, and believe the solutions to problems be single sources, rather than complex and multi faceted.
I myself am interested in the culture in this hobby, and sometimes try to pose philisophical social questions about the hobby, that often result in derailings, so I understand.
Life is full of misconceptions as we are very rarely certain to a large degree of accuracy, what we know and what we think we know are indeed correct and true to begin with.
Because this is still a new hobby, and nothing is set in stone, there are a lot of different approaches and theories to what creates "success".
As new information is found and applied, older methods remain and either found to be true/false/circumstancial and are either abandoned, rejected, or modified. But this can be slow to become the norm as people are not usually accepting of change, especially when thier current method appear to be working.
This is a constant cycle happening and misconceptions, which by definition infers an incorrect original theory, means we are getting closer to being "correct". These are good things to have, as long as we continue this constant learning I was mentioning.
This would explain in part the explosive growth in the hobby the last few years........as it has become "easier" to obtain "success".
Perhaps though, our greatest fallacies are that we base our theories on macroscopic views largely through what we see with our eyes, and believe the solutions to problems be single sources, rather than complex and multi faceted.
Last edited:
Santoki
Shimmer Addict
Like Tang Salad said, AA dosing arose from use of carbon dosing to reach an ULN environment and not protein skimming. Skimming is simply a necessary tool employed to deal with bacterial biomass issues when carbon dosing.
The following certainly is not very mature IMO.
As for keeping a successful reef without a protein skimmer, it is possible if we are talking about soft corals, which IMO can grow in ditches with some water and salt. I have yet to see any skimmerless systems which contain thriving SPS colonies.
kev apsley
In Memoriam
I know exactly why people dose AA's, my point was to merely suggest that perhaps we as hobbyist tend to skim too much and don't allow the natural processes in our tank to take place, such as allowing free floating bacteria and zooplankton to be taken up by our corals specifically SPS corals, which are known to uptake and feed upon those items for a source of energy and growth. If perhaps we skimmed a little less and used what's already in our water column ( zooplankton, bacteria's etc.) before we pull it out via protein skimming, it just might be an alternative method than dosing AA's and other additives which we use to make up for the lack of nitrogen and carbon. I don't skim because I can't due to the size of my tank but I know it's not the only way to do it and yes it is a viable tool but imo not totally necessary
kev apsley
In Memoriam
Santoki
Shimmer Addict
I would love to see them. There are non around where I live, and non that I've seen on RC.
Perhaps if they are fishless?
I think Randy's comical statement sums it up pretty well.
A skimmer will remove both beneficial plankton and bacteria as well as fish poo, chemicals released by tank inhabitants during respiration, uneaten food, anything decomposing, the list goes on and on. The idea is to remove the uneaten food and waste before it has a chance to break down. A skimmer needs to be employed to make sure neither of the two remain in the water column long enough to turn into fertilizer. On the reef, currents bring in food and carry away waste much like our skimmers do. Nothing sits around on a reef, including plankton. Based on your typical water volume to animal population ratio of a typical reef tank, the benefits of running a skimmer outweighs not running one IMO.
Getting back to reefkeeping misconceptions...
Is a skimmer needed to run a successful reef when "reef" is defined as a structure built by stony corals?
I vote yes.
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
Here's a skimmerless tank that is QUITE worthy of TOTM...
http://haaga.aqua-web.org/082006/index.htm
I'm not about to pull my skimmer yet though.
http://haaga.aqua-web.org/082006/index.htm
I'm not about to pull my skimmer yet though.
kev apsley
In Memoriam
what you are explaining to me I am well versed in, I know how things work within a closed reef system, your not telling me anything I don't already know, you obviously have your beliefs and I have mine, there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is more than one way to run a successful reef tank. Sure skimmers are a great husbandry tool, matter of fact I would use one if given the choice but they are not the only way to run a reef tank..as for successful sps systems that run skimmerless I'm almost 100% sure Tyree runs one or more of his systems skimmerless, I'll post pictures of my corals when I get home. I for one am somebody who runs reef tank skimmerless so I'm talking from experience, have you ever done it? I have seen it can been done, sure on larger systems it would be a good idea depending on a persons husbandry practices but for people to sit there and tell me it's mandatory it's not0
miwoodar
Likey the bikey
This one is pretty nice too. It's not SPS-laden but I think it counts for the sake of the topic at hand.
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1506957&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1506957&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
kev apsley
In Memoriam
I knew I ran into a couple on here..Thanks for the link!
Santoki
Shimmer Addict
I hope I would never make any statements I can't backup either based on personal experience or factual evidence.
On that note, success to me does not mean a couple years. Success to me is long term sustainability. I've seen way too many nice looking tanks simply to hear they have crashed for one reason or another after a few years. If stony growths can be maintained from inception to full colonies while following a set procedure for more than a few years, I would consider that a success story.
