Common Misconceptions In the Hobby

[barbra]

Originally posted by capn_hylinur
your not going to tell me your a "he" also are you
One is all I can take in one night?

Fully and unmistakably a she. Dudes don't say 'pompous' anyway. Not straight ones

[barbra]

Originally posted by capn_hylinur
I've read that post over 10 times--would you mind stating his point without the "plethora of verbal berage."

To somewhat oversimplify it is to say that our tanks are such a shockingly imperfect replica of the natural world that it is nearly impossible to say that anything that happens in the wild could be applicable to our tanks and is not sound reasoning.

As an example:
The fish in your tank are chronically stressed from (fill in the blank) simply because they are in an aquarium. When you throw another stresser at them, say a large temperature swing, it could prove to be the deciding factor in life or death.


**edit**
Such a swing might not cause harm to an animal in the wild, and the general state of each individual tank would have to be taken into consideration to say whether or not a phenomenon that is unremarkable in one tank could be significant in another.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by JPMagyar
Here then, is my premise: the temperature range encompassing the majority of reef tanks mentioned on RC is somewhere between 77 and 82, and this range is proven to provide acceptable results and safety margins. Therefore, to state that the proper range should be in the low 80's represents a significant change, and one which warrants considerable discussion and evidence.

How is it a significant change? You yourself just said that in your opinion the most common temperature range "mentioned on RC is somewhere between 77 and 82." Therefore, "the low 80's falls within the range that you yourself just said "is proven to provide acceptable results and safety margins."

This is the quote that you are taking issue with: "Maintaining temperatures in the low 80's is probably most natural and will suit most fish/coral available in the industry. Thankfully this has become more accepted in recent years."

The low 80's would be 80, 81 and 82. The mid-80's would be 84, 85 and 86. Greenbean recommended the low 80's. That sounds like an excellent recommendation to me. You may prefer the upper 70's.

The point is not that several dozen species of coral out of the countless thousands so far recorded can survive large variations in temperature, but rather in our tiny microcosms of overburdened reefdom the margins for survival are greatly reduced and the need to maintain optimal conditions is greatly exaggerated.

It is a valid point to argue that reef tanks may be more conservatively managed at temperatures below the temperatures encountered in the natural environment but no one is recommending that reef tanks be maintained at 90 degrees Fahrenheit. If you are uncomfortable with temperatures in the low 80's, then don't go that route. Greenbean did not suggest you should try to mimic natural extremes, he was just making the point that many corals in their natural environment experience a wide fluctuation in water temperature.

Surely, one might create a biotope in which fish and corals are maintained at a temperature in excess of 86 degrees fahrenheit. However, one can not draw from that particular experience to say that the tens of thousands of saltwater aquariums in existence today would benefit from such a temperature regime.

No one suggested that. Where in this thread did anyone recommend setting up a reef tank "at a temperature in excess of 86 degrees Fahrenheit?" Greenbean did not suggest that "the tens of thousands of saltwater aquariums in existence today woult benefit from such a temperature regime." No one did.

Likewise, the ability of corals to survive and ship at temperatures significantly below those found on the "average" reef does not imply that one should maintain a lower than accepted temperature. Which leads me to my original frustration with this thread for one can not recommend both higher temperatures and lower temperatures in the same argument.

He did not recommend both higher and lower temperatures in the same argument. He recommended "the low 80's." He pointed out that he knows of some hobbyists who maintain tanks in the mid-70's but he didn't "recommend" those temperatures. Quite the opposite, he said he knows of no good reason for keepting tanks at that temperature. Again, the only temperature range he recommended is "the low 80's," which makes perfectly good sense to me. If it doesn't make perfectly good sense to you, than you shouldn't follow that advice.

In truth the methods, styles, results, and beauty of the tanks displayed on RC are myriad, but to make sweeping generalizations as to the need to increase the average accepted temperature without serious discussion and evidence is to me a disservice to the community at large, and I find that this particular issue is but one of many that were mentioned here within under the simplest of pretexts using little or no evidentiary support.

I don't know where you were when we had all of those heated (pardon the pun) exchanges on this board discussing Dr. Ron Shimek's article on temperature and salinity but the article was published exactly 10 years ago and it has been discussed repeatedly on Reef Central during the 7-1/2 years that I have been a member. If you're not familiar with Shimek's recommendations on this subject, check out his article. He presents the case for maintaining a reef tank in the 80-84F range. Personally, I prefer 80-83F.

As a final note I would add that I pride myself on maintaining an open mind, and I merely hope everyone reading my diatribe would understand from whence my opinion orginates, and give my person the benefit of doubt whilst persuading me I am wrong. In other words, if you disagree please keep in mind I am speaking honestly with a good intent, and not to put anyone in particular down.

The only disagreement is that you are arguing against something that was not recommended. If you think temperatures lower than the low 80's are better, then have at it. Greenbean offered his opinion that temperatures in the low 80's are ideal. That's his opinion. I agree with him.

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by Paul B
I don't have a filter sock, but then I don,t have a sump either.
Every few months I diatom filter the tank to remove suspended particles. There are all sorts of tiny little suckers all over my rocks.

Paul, how often do you change the water in your tank?

[JPMagyar]

Well, it's official - I have gone directly from middle-aged cool to elderly curmudgeon in one fell swoop, and clearly I am on the losing side of this debate, but if the community will indulge my attempt at humorously verbose didactics I shall endeavour to illuminate further my original complaint one last time. However, before I begin allow me to offer an apology to any and all RCer's offended by my first post's offensive tenor. Now on to the debate

The internet is a marvelous invention that has brought vast stores of knowledge to the world's doorstep, but sometimes sifting the fact from the opinion is difficult and as a result leads many to a false sense of understanding.

This thread opens with sweeping generalizations that the "common" conceptions of reefers on pH, kH, temperature, nitrates, coral biology, lighting and flow are wrong and follows this breathtaking assumption with "matter of fact" statements regarding the improving communal consensus, all of this with not a single reference to polls, journals, articles, or scientific literature of any kind. Where is the proof these "misconceptions" are common, and the new recommendations are better. Given the scope of the new "conclusions" one would expect at least a cursory attempt to defend such prognostications as being quite voluminous in its reference material for how else could one be so certain as to proclaim truth regarding topics upon which many spend their entire life researching and debating. The tradition of opening debate and challenging accepted notions is noble and ancient, but to jump to conclusions and state them in a factual manner trivializes the best that RC has to offer and lies at the heart of my complaint.

Perhaps I am over reacting, and if this is so I throw myself at the mercy of the RC community and beg forgiveness, but for me facts and opinions are too easily comingled these days, and like the proverbial policeman says:

"Just the facts please, ma'am!"

sincerely,

The RC Party Poop and Village Curmudgeon - Joe

[greenbean36191]

If there are specific claims you take issue with I'd be happy to dig up references for them. I've already posted references elsewhere for most of the claims I've made here anyway. I haven't posted them here because most people don't care or don't have access to them, so looking them all up and citing them again just becomes a major waste of time and space in this type of thread.

There are also a few of the myths in the hobby that have essentially no factual basis, so it's hard to even address them with the literature.

[greenbean36191]

But, in my personal experience I have seen a $20,000 aquarium go down in a mere 24 hour period due to a chiller failure and a temperature peak of 88 degrees. Here then, is my premise: the temperature range encompassing the majority of reef tanks mentioned on RC is somewhere between 77 and 82, and this range is proven to provide acceptable results and safety margins.

That's because the fear of temp spikes or temp swings killing corals is a self fulfilling prophecy. Corals from cooler water bleach at lower temps. Corals from more thermally stable conditions withstand less variation. When people keep their tanks cooler or more stable with the false notion that they're increasing the margin of error they're doing the exact opposite. They end up with a tank full of corals that can be killed by short periods at temps that are completely natural and can last weeks at a time without doing harm either in the wild or in the lab.

[Paul B]

JPMagyar. I don't think you are on the loseing side of a debate.
I am confused as to what the debate is anyway, although you have an eloquent way of addressing it.
I think it is safe to say that most of our corals will live at around 82 degrees give or take a few degrees. If you want to be sure you can look up the temperature of the water your animals come from or do what I do and carry a thermometer with you when you dive near where your corals were collected.
Of course that gets expensive.

Captn, I don't change water as often as most people here do for reasons that I am not ready to openly explore on RC yet.
I change about 30% about four times a year.
If I am out in my boat and the water looks good and I have a bucket, I get some water.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by JPMagyar
Perhaps I am over reacting, and if this is so I throw myself at the mercy of the RC community and beg forgiveness, but for me facts and opinions are too easily comingled these days, and like the proverbial policeman says:

"Just the facts please, ma'am!"

sincerely,

The RC Party Poop and Village Curmudgeon - Joe

Peter Eichler opened the thread as a discussion of what he believes are some common misconceptions in the hobby. He pointed out in his opening post that many of these have fallen by the wayside in recent years.

I don't think it was intended as an academic thesis, just a discussion of individual opinions. Most of the conventional wisdom in this hobby is based on anecdotal reports from other hobbyists. There have been very few scientific studies that concentrated on marine animals in captive environments. Most studies are done in situ and describe natural habitat experiences.

If someone makes a statement that the water temperature in Fiji averages in the mid-70's, I can refute that with actual measurements from reliable sources proving that the average water temperature there is much higher than that. In fact, we can find statistics for the water temperature at virtually every reef in the world going back many years.

That doesn't end the discussion of what the ideal temperature might be for a home reef aquarium. It may be informative and should be given consideration but there are those who will argue that lower temperatures are more desirable in a home aquarium. I may prefer a temperature range of 80-83 Fahrenheit and someone else may prefer a range of 77-80 F. We can both find hundreds of examples of beautiful reef tanks online that are maintained at our preferred temperature.

Back in 1994, when Delbeek and Sprung published Volume One of The Reef Aquarium, they stated that a reef tank temperature of 74-76 F was ideal. Years later, Julian Sprung was using a range of 76-80 F as ideal in his opinion. My own reading of the various hobby bulletin boards around the world leaves me with the impression that very few hobbyists operate reef tanks at temperatures below 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Without doing an actual survey, I would guess that the most common range is 78-84 F. Tanks that are equipped with chillers are rarely maintained at temperatures above 83 F. Hobbyists who operate tanks without chillers, or tanks outdoors, are more likely to report temperatures that rise above 84 F.

[JPMagyar]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
When people keep their tanks cooler or more stable with the false notion that they're increasing the margin of error they're doing the exact opposite. They end up with a tank full of corals that can be killed by short periods at temps that are completely natural . . .

K. D. Castillo Æ B. S. T. Helmuth
Influence of thermal history on the response of Montastraeaannularis
to short-term temperature exposure
Received: 23 July 2004 / Accepted: 16 May 2005
Ó Springer-Verlag 2005


However, we still do not completely understand the
roles of thermal history and rates of temperature
change in coral physiological stress. In particular, our
understanding of how corals are affected by exposure
to high-frequency variability in thermal regimes is very
limited . . .

We must also keep in mind that only one
stress factor was addressed in the present study. Corals
are exposed to multiple stressors in their natural envi-
ronment and information on the duration, frequency,
and intensity of exposure to these stressors is necessary
before a more meaningful conclusion about bleaching
susceptibility can be established.

And there it is ladies and gentlemen in a nut shell . . . that is an elegant hypothesis and one worthy of research, in fact one to which I would give some credence, but to state such as fact is simply erroneous.


Joe

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by JPMagyar
And there it is ladies and gentlemen in a nut shell . . . that is an elegant hypothesis and one worthy of research, in fact one to which I would give some credence, but to state such as fact is simply erroneous.


Joe

Joe --its great you have joined this thread---- I can't help but infer that your rather unique entrance might have been well orchestrated KInd of like the student that comes in late but drops his books on the ground

personally I have learned alot from the discussions in this thread--in practical terms I have changed alot of "ways I do businss" in my reef tank. Everything has taken a light year in growth colour etc since the onset of this thread.

A discussion of misconceptions can quickly turn into tips or ways of doing things a little different---and give you a boost out of mediocracy(apologies for my spelling--where the heck did you develop that vocabulary )

so I appeal to all the experts here--please try to keep it practical for we newbie curmudgeons(oou--I like that word)

[Paul B]

I have found through my personal observations of diving on reefs that the biggest reason for the destruction of coral reefs (besides global warming) is huricaines and Typhoons which do not kill the corals by their wind and rain but by the run off of mud from the land. I have gone diving two weeks after a devestating hurricaine hit the Caribbean. Some of the Islands like Nevis and Bequa were devestated but the same fate hit the corals. The light was still blocked by sediment which covered the corals even 30 feet down. The wind also caused large seafans to become stranded high up on the beaches.
This coral destruction is directly related to human activity which builds roads and farms eliminating the tangled vegetation which naturally keeps the mud trapped on shore.
The temperature in the tropics is fairly stable and corals don't have much tollerance for change.
I don't know if this has anything to do with the discussion but I felt like typing

[greenbean36191]

Virtually every scientific paper contains tempering statements about how more research is still needed. Most aspects of reef dynamics are far from being understood. To say that we don't know everything and to say that we don't have a basic factual understanding are two different things. We know a whole lot less about the effects of dissolved nutrients on corals than we do about temperatures, but I think most of us are pretty comfortable with our knowledge of nutrients.

Given the work they did, Brian and Karl wasted a whole lot of time if we still don't know anything about the effects of temps. The very paper you cite supports the fact that corals from cooler, more stable regimes do worse at higher temps. Brian has done more work since then looking at high frequency variation on reefs and concluded that they're important to the health of the reef. That's a big conclusion to make if the role of temps is a mystery. Their work was also essentially testing a basic ecological principle to see if it held true in corals. It had already been confirmed in marine fish and other inverts.

Besides, their paper is hardly the only one on the subject. Here are a few I cited in another thread on the subject:
Coles, S.L. and B.E. Brown. 2003. Coral bleaching-capacity for acclimatization and adaptation. Adv. Mar. Biol. 46:183-223.

Kleypas, J. A., J. W. McManus, and L. A. B. Menez. 1999. Environmental Limits to Coral Reef Development: Where Do We Draw The Line? American Zoologist. 39:146- 159.

Wood, R. 1999. Reef Evolution. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 414 pp.

Wolanski, E and G.L. Pickard. 1983. Upwelling by internal tides and Kelvin waves at the continental shelf break on the GBR. Australian J. Mar. Res. 34: 65-80.

Leichter et al. 1996. Pulsed delivery of subthermocline water to Conch Reef (Florida Keys) by internal tidal bores. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41: 1490-1501

Leichter, J.J., B. Helmuth, and A. Fischer. 2006. Variation beneath the surface: quantifying complex thermal environments on coral reefs in the Caribbean, Bahamas, and Florida. J. Mar. Res. 64(4): 563-588.

Castillo, K.D. and B.S.T. Helmuth. 2005. Influence of thermal history on response of Montastraea annularis to short-term temperature exposure. Mar. Biol. 148(2): 261-270.

Quinn, N.J. and B.L. Kojis. 1999. Subsurface seawater temperature variation and the recovery of corals from the 1993 coral bleaching event in waters off St. Thomas, USVI. Bull Mar. Sci 65:201-214.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and G.J. Smith. 1989. The effect of sudden changes in temperature, irradiance and salinity on the population density and export of zooxanthellae from the reef corals Stylophora pistillata (Esper 1797)and Seriatopora hystrix (Dana 1846). Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 129:279-303.

West, J.M. and R.V. Salm. 2003. Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: Implications for coral reef conservation and management. Conserv. Biol. 17:956-967.

[JPMagyar]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Virtually every scientific paper contains tempering statements about how more research is still needed. Most aspects of reef dynamics are far from being understood. . .

Brian has done more work since then looking at high frequency variation on reefs and concluded that they're important to the health of the reef.

Yes, he has done some more work . . .

Variation beneath the surface: Quantifying complex
thermal environments on coral reefs in the Caribbean,
Bahamas and Florida
by James J. Leichter1, Brian Helmuth2, and Andrew M. Fischer3
Journal of Marine Research, 64, 563–588, 2006



The roles of thermal history and rates of temperature change in driving coral physiological stress are also likely to be significant but are presently unknown. Clearly, we are far from completely understanding the physiological effects of high frequency temperature variability for corals.

Give me a few days and I will search out the abstracts listed above; however, I am highly dubious that I will find any conclusions to support your "fact" in regards to all corals kept in home aquariums as a general rule.


Am I truly proposing such a horrid thought that comments on RC are often open to debate?

And, again I fear that I have drifted away from my original intent and I only hope Greenbean will take m reposts in the collegial spirit in which they are intended as opposed to the potentially personal resonance they may generate.


Joe

[greenbean36191]

Again, you're citing tempering statements without the context and findings of the specific article, or the body of evidence as a whole.

If you really want to know his uncensored take on the question just ask Dr. Helmuth himself. He's very helpful and the reason I knew about those papers in the first place is because I asked him a question on the topic and he told me to keep an eye out for his most recent work (they were still in review at the time).

Eric Borneman is another good person to ask. He's very active in the hobby, works on coral diseases, and we've had discussions on the issue as well, including within the past couple of weeks. He's got his own forum at Marine Depot where you can ask him. He could probably point out even more references for you. You can find Ron Shimek who has written extensively on the subject over at MD too.

Another you might try is Rich Aronson. He's the president of the International Society of Reef Studies and is one of the world experts on bleaching and coral health. He also happens to be the guy that taught me reef ecology among other things and we actually had a lengthy discussion about the types of temps hobbyists are running. He's very busy though, and tends to be very short in his emails when he even replies at all.

You certainly don't have to agree with me, and to me it's not worth it to spend my break trying to dig up more articles to try to change your mind. However, I think if you do some reading beyond just the few papers I cited (originally posted for a different reason, so may not all be relevant) and ask around you'll see that the claims have a lot more support than you seem to believe. I've been studying reefs as long as I've been keeping them and I've yet to run into anyone outside of the hobby that seems to think there is any merit to this anxiety about temperatures.

[JPMagyar]

Alright, I promise to leave this particular example alone after this last response . . .



You have stated, without modification or clarification, and in a manner which would imply applicability to all currently maintained reef aquariums.

When people keep their tanks cooler or more stable with the false notion that they're increasing the margin of error they're doing the exact opposite.

The excessively broad nature of your statement makes it inherently false. No scientist would make such a sweeping argument without years of evidence and trial studies to prove such a point. Furthermore, even if one were to accept the principal that temperature variation in tanks can improve survivability that does not imply that the goals of an aquarist will necessarily be enhanced. Survivability is but one aspect of most aquarists needs or desires. Biodiversity, coloration, polyp extension, growth rate, these too are on the minds of many tank owners and are in no way addressed by the research of marine biologists in situ. I recognize the statement does not directly address such issues, but the implication is temperature variability in tanks is superior to stability which has much the same connotation. Now having said all that I will admit to a certain level of devils advocacy here.

You may be shocked to know that my own reef swings from between 77.8 to as high as 83.4 degrees Fahrenheit on a daily basis during the summer months. I do not use a chiller and rely on my large basement sump to act as a heat sink during the day. So as you can see I have no anxiety over temperatures nor do I disagree that RCers benefit from a discussion on temperature variability, but what I do feel strongly about is sweeping generalizations made in a manner which implies absolute universal truth. Whether intentional or not I can assure you that many people reading your statement, over which I am arguing, will take that as gospel for all tanks in existence without ever researching the data behind the conclusion, and that is the travesty of the internet. The true irony is my argument is easily ended with the simplest of rewrites:

Marine biologists studying certain wild corals have found that those which get frequent and large temperature swings have a better chance of surviving short term heat spikes. The average aquarist may find their tank will benefit from allowing greater temperature variability, and perhaps need not be so anxious over temperatures as previously thought.

Now that - my dear Watson - is a fact!

I have very much enjoyed the discussion, and am thrilled at all the new reading I have as a result of researching this issue so for all of that I say "Thank-you". I only hope you understand the nature of my discourse, and will not hold that against my person.

Joe

[greenbean36191]

You're right that science can't ever "know" anything. The best we can do is look at the evidence, make a general statement and try to disprove it and come up with something better. The statement I made goes back to a principle that has been around for probably more than 100 years in terrestrial and aquatic environments. It's virtually universal there and it's so accepted that it's something you learn about literally in freshman ecology. Does that mean it's been tested on everything, or that it's even universal in everything that has been tested? No, but for the sake of general discussion it's true. People have been testing the same thing in marine habitats since at least the early 70's and so far it seems pretty much universal there too. Just off the top of my head I know it's been directly tested in Montastrea, Montipora, Pocillopora, some fish, and some inverts including "margarita" snails. There are further in situ observations supporting that it occurs in Porites, Acropora, and Fungia, plus the anecdotal evidence of hobbyists. Have we tested everything? Of course not, so yes, it's an assumption based on a small sample. However, so far there's no evidence to suggest that it doesn't hold true for most cases and we have no reason to believe that marine environments are unique in that regard.

Given absolute statements like "temperature swings should be kept to a minimum because they're stressful to the corals/ fish," which have virtually no scientific basis, I think for the sake of discussion in a public forum it's fair to refute them using equally absolute statements based on the body of evidence. Is it acceptable in court or in a scientific paper? Of course not. I agree that your statement is more tempered and leaves out most of the assumptions of my statement, but I would still change it slightly.

Marine biologists studying certain corals in the wild and in controlled lab conditions have found that those which get frequent and large temperature swings have a better chance of surviving elevated temperatures lasting from hours to months. They also withstand higher temperatures before heat stress responses are observed. The average aquarist may find their tank will benefit from allowing greater temperature variability, and perhaps need not be so anxious over temperatures as previously thought.

Biodiversity, coloration, polyp extension, growth rate, these too are on the minds of many tank owners and are in no way addressed by the research of marine biologists in situ.

Like I mentioned, I just copied and pasted the list of articles from another thread where I was having a similar discussion, so I'm not sure what if any of these issues are addressed in them. I actually don't have access to most of them ATM since I'm on the road. Biodiversity and growth rate have both been addressed, though the impacts on either aren't very clear. You would expect growth to be slowed slightly with variation and increased with increasing temperature. There was at least one study I can think of that showed that, while another showed the exact opposite result. Biodiversity is almost always highest in areas with higher and more variable temperatures, but that correlation doesn't imply causation. Disturbance frequency due to things like hurricanes also correlates well with many of those areas.

[capn_hylinur]

IMHO--you have in a round about way given support to greenbeans original statement.

"When people keep their tanks cooler or more stable with the false notion that they're increasing the margin of error they're doing the exact opposite."

by your statement:
"Marine biologists studying certain wild corals have found that those which get frequent and large temperature swings have a better chance of surviving short term heat spikes. The average aquarist may find their tank will benefit from allowing greater temperature variability, and perhaps need not be so anxious over temperatures as previously thought."

Now that - my dear Watson - is a fact!

and supported it anecdotably from your own experience.

The power of internet sites like Reef Central is that it provides a medium for experinced reefers to give their points of view based on what worked for them--what didn't work for them.

That is basically what I quote in my avitar----experince is the best teacher.

Reef central is also very fortunate to have reef hobbyists//marine biologists contributing to threads. And equally fortunate to have had a great scientest like Randy Holmes----and hobbyists who have mentored under him available to less experinece hobbyists like myself and others.

I give alot of credibility to these guys like greenbean ect and allow them to influence my thinking to the point of taking action.
Up to this point I feel I have profited by it---much more then reading article after article in science journals---when they get so complex in biochemistry I tend to nod off

I like this hobby because it is hands on--it requires science skills--and I can get a quick practical answer to my questions on Reef Central.

You are correct in one of your original posts---this was a great thread at the start-------but as I notice---I am one of the few inexperieced reefers left supporting it---and have to admit being turned off also--by a verbal berage off quoting one scientest article after another in order to win an argument.
In a discusion there are no winners or losers--except the readers who profit from a broader perspective on the issues.

You mention you are a devils advocate---in cyber language there is another word for it--and by no means am I being accusatory here---but it is called tr******.

Greenbean----I still am in awe of your expertise and the help you give us reefers----------buy don't give into your principles here--
and continue filling this thread up with citations from scientists works-----I still believe in what you--the experienced reefer posts.

[JPMagyar]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
Given absolute statements like "temperature swings should be kept to a minimum because they're stressful to the corals/ fish," which have virtually no scientific basis, I think for the sake of discussion in a public forum it's fair to refute them using equally absolute statements based on the body of evidence.

Touche and fair enough

Originally posted by capn_hylinur

You mention you are a devils advocate---in cyber language there is another word for it--and by no means am I being accusatory here---but it is called tr******.

TReehugger
Trashtalker
TrulyNiceGuy

I am the first to admit I want to learn everyday so I hope you'll PM with the answer

Originally posted by JPMagyar


1) This is what I dislike about RC, people can say anything and it passes down as "knowledge".

2) to make sweeping generalizations as to the need to increase the average accepted temperature without serious discussion and evidence is to me a disservice to the community at large, and I find that this particular issue is but one of many that were mentioned here within under the simplest of pretexts using little or no evidentiary support.

3) The tradition of opening debate and challenging accepted notions is noble and ancient, but to jump to conclusions and state them in a factual manner trivializes the best that RC has to offer and lies at the heart of my complaint.

4) but what I do feel strongly about is sweeping generalizations made in a manner which implies absolute universal truth

And that I promise is my last addition to this wonderful body of discourse . . . you may all breathe a sigh of relief


Joe

[capn_hylinur]

TReehugger
Trashtalker
TrulyNiceGuy

I am the first to admit I want to learn everyday so I hope you'll PM with the answer

Joe, I do not feel remotely qualified to continue to debate with someone as experinced as you and I definetly want to keep my posting friendly and postive on Reef Escape as I have strived for in the past.
So------choice #3 would be a personally prefered way of ending this series of posts---
TrulyNiceGuy works for me and I hope it works for you

[capn_hylinur]

Wow--just when I was starting to be "misconception free" after being in RC quarantine for 8 months or so.
I started a thread basically to see how I could cut my energy costs through lighting and filtration(return pumps)

I was blown away by this thread:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...d&pagenumber=1

Since my onset in reef keeping I was read, been told, etc that it is diserable to have a tank turn over of 20- 40 times.
I really don't understand how a return flow to match your skimmer is going to be adventagous to corals etc in your tank.

--or are people considering the tank turn over as total flow within your tank.

I started out with a discussion of an alternative to my mag3600 with 7 feet of head and plumbing was giving me a gph of about 1800--2000. That mag3600 is a bit of an energy hog with 350 watts per hour.
Here is the thread I started

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...readid=1255315

[hkyeo72]

I think the most important thing that one should notice is how well is the coral and fish doing in the tank, even if there is high nitrates reading or kh or ph. I have been keeping reef for five years and till' now I still have problem with nitrates (20-30) but my corals seem doing well and they are climate to the changes to survive in close system.

[Paul B]

I think turnover rate is confusing. As long as you have good circulation, you will be fine. I have dove enough times to know that there is a nice current on most reefs. Some of it is so strong like in Cozumel that you can't swim against it. The fish look like they are struggling but they are used to it and can rest behind a rock if they like. I turn off the pumps to feed.
I also believe that at least one pump should be semi aimed at the surface as this is where oxygen transfer and CO2 is eliminated.
Paul

[Philwd]

Turnover refers to every pump you have running. Returns+PH+CL. There is more to it than just overall turnover. The flow needs to be able to eliminate dead spots. My total turn is at any one time 45-50X. It would be higher but I have my vortechs running antisync 1 on 1 off.

I think the sweet spot for a return pump is 5-10X the sump volume. But I also run one overflow right into the skimmer to get direct raw surface skimmed water into the skimmer. So I actually run a little higher than 10X to make sure the skimmer is fed enough water. If I ran the skimmer the more traditional way in the sump then I would cut back on the return flow a bit.

[capn_hylinur]

if the sweet spot is 5-10x's that would leave a tank circulation as 25-30 times. Would my tank(and inhabitants ) be able to take that kind of flow?