Common Misconceptions In the Hobby

[tonyf]

This is a great thread ... with qualifications. I believe that it is dangerous to lessen the importance of the common wisdom in respect the parameters / metrics of our captive environments. What is perpetrated in the thread is undeniable, but at the same time a disservice to the lesser experienced aquarist. Just as we are now finding that our kids are at an educational disadvantage through the destruction of 'old school' education systems, so inexperienced aquarists will find themselves at a great disadvantage in getting to a point where they can enjoy their displays. My view is that learning the 'common wisdom' first will engender a more disciplined approach to the husbandry of our captive environments and therefore greater opportunity for success. Once the aquarist has become educated and experienced then loosen the reigns a bit and explore the tolerances of the systems.

Tone

[oysterxfast5]

Now on the temp argument I haven't check my temp in over eight months, I got the heater set with a thermometer at about 80.5 and every thing has been fine since Knock on wood. It only varies maybe 1 degrees or so. I am sure I will get someone on here telling me that I should be doing it differently, but I see it as it has been fine almost a year i am not changing it.

[mbbuna]

Originally posted by capn_hylinur
oops just got corrected on another misconception --thanks peter--
Feeding clams cyclopeeze is not recommended due to the size of it--one should stick to phyo.
Also lighting is not as great a concern with adult clams as the young since they can rely on established filter feeding more then the young

you have to love this thread

Tridacnid clams rely on photosynthesis (both young and old) not filter feeding. only Gigas has been shown to increase its filter feeding capacity with age, and even at that not by much. clams have the ability to uptake nutrients right through there flesh to feed there zoox, no need to filter particulate when the raw nutrients are easily available. will they filter? sure. do they rely on it? not in the least.

on the same topic

clams under 3" (or 4" or what ever you might read) can not sustain themselves through photosynthesis alone because there mantles aren't developed enough to house enough zoox to feed them, and or there mantles aren't large enough to house enough zoox to support them. false

within a few days of a clam going through it veliger larval stage there mantles are fully developed and full of zoox. the size of there mantles stays the same proportionately to the size of the clam through out its life. these tiny clam are completely capable of sustaining themselves through photosynthesis alone.

one more

squamosa, derasa and gigas "prefer" the sand. false

all the tridacna clams are most commonly found up on the reef. the only tridacnid clams that are commonly found in the sand are Hippopus species. some tridacna clams can be found on the sand but only in very sheltered areas where the sand doesnt move.

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by tonyf
This is a great thread ... with qualifications. I believe that it is dangerous to lessen the importance of the common wisdom in respect the parameters / metrics of our captive environments. What is perpetrated in the thread is undeniable, but at the same time a disservice to the lesser experienced aquarist. Just as we are now finding that our kids are at an educational disadvantage through the destruction of 'old school' education systems, so inexperienced aquarists will find themselves at a great disadvantage in getting to a point where they can enjoy their displays. My view is that learning the 'common wisdom' first will engender a more disciplined approach to the husbandry of our captive environments and therefore greater opportunity for success. Once the aquarist has become educated and experienced then loosen the reigns a bit and explore the tolerances of the systems.

Tone

What if the common wisdom is incorrect?

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
What if the common wisdom is incorrect?

I believe this concept is called misconception

[capn_hylinur]

Another misconception I have had cleared up is around the actual value a u.v. sterilizer has.
Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.
Using a sterilzer along with a refugium can be counter productive destroying some of the copopods etc that you are trying to supply the main tank.

[aninjaatemyshoe]

"Another misconception I have had cleared up is around the actual value a u.v. sterilizer has.
Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.
Using a sterilzer along with a refugium can be counter productive destroying some of the copopods etc that you are trying to supply the main tank."

First of all, UV sterilizers have to be running at a low enough flow rate and a high enough intensity to kill copepods, which require more uw/cm2 than most of the strongest stuff we're trying to kill (parasites, for instance). Then consider that most protein skimmers, especially needlewheel ones, probably result in more copepod fatalities than your average UV sterilizer. And finally consider that many people I know of use them and still report having tons of pods.

I certainly don't think that UV sterilizers are necessary for this hobby. However, they do seem to help clarify the water, keep down certain algae, and are good for avoiding certain diseases. The reason why experienced reefers tend to not gravitate towards buying a UV sterilizer is because they are doing a good job of keeping the aforementioned in check without one.

[HBtank]

Nice thread..

One thing though.... While I think there might be some generalizations about certian corals and their flow demands, I think that almost any reef aquarium will benefit from the maximum flow you can accomodate.

Though I think that you might be right in pointing out a myth, some may take it as as a reason to skimp on flow, which is not a smart move IMO.

Though certain corals may not have their optimum environment in a higher flow tank, I think the aquarium as a whole will be much healthier.

You can always orient your flow to have micro-environments inside your tank with lower and higher flow areas. I personally think any type of tank (even a low flow softy tank) can have high flow if some thought is put into it.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by aninjaatemyshoe


As far as the temperature thing goes, there is plenty of scientific evidence and reason to support keeping temperature at/around 78 degrees. The counter-argument that "their natural habitat experiences wild temperature shifts from low 70s to low 90s" is fallacious because we are not talking about keeping them in their natural habitat.

Thats such a cop-out answer. If you want to say we shouldnt keep them in natural situations because "our reefs are different" then the same thing could be said about light, flow, etc.


I've noticed significantly better health, and significantly greater resilience since I stopped regulating temperature.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
Sprung is a good aquarist and wrote some good books but he's been wrong many times before and he'll be wrong again. He's a hobbyist just like many of us and he has been known to follow common beliefs and trends just like many of us. When I want a supplement I don't need I'll trust Sprung. Other than that I'll put a little more faith in natural conditions and personal observations. For years I was made deathly affraid of temps breaking the 80 degree mark because of Sprung, and it was complete and total nonsense.

I second that.

We need to start realizing that just because a person is an "expert" doesnt mean they know a whole lot about related topics:

"The principle difference regarding temperature between the natural environment and the aquarium has to do with oxygen availability...

Take a look at the difference in oxygen saturation between 78' and 90'. Its negligible.


Also, step back from the term "expert". NOBODY really knows anything about these animals.



Since when is spawning a bad thing?

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by RichConley
Thats such a cop-out answer. If you want to say we shouldnt keep them in natural situations because "our reefs are different" then the same thing could be said about light, flow, etc.


I've noticed significantly better health, and significantly greater resilience since I stopped regulating temperature.

What are the signs of significantly better health---curious about this because it becomes a good yardstick for judging how well we are doing/learning.
you mention not regulating temp--I assume you keep it within an acceptable range of high and lows?

[RichConley]

Originally posted by capn_hylinur
What are the signs of significantly better health---curious about this because it becomes a good yardstick for judging how well we are doing/learning.
you mention not regulating temp--I assume you keep it within an acceptable range of high and lows?

(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.


As to better health, better colors in the SPS, better growth, etc. When I was keeping the tank stable at 78, if I had a single day at 82, growth stopped, everything looked stressed, and it took a couple weeks to recover. Now nothing cares.

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by RichConley
I second that.

We need to start realizing that just because a person is an "expert" doesnt mean they know a whole lot about related topics:

I like to distinguish between experienced and experts. We all know the value of practical experince especially with this is such a hands on hobby.
I also like to distinguish between a few experienced and alot experienced.


this is why these threads are a great learning tool.

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by RichConley
(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.


As to better health, better colors in the SPS, better growth, etc. When I was keeping the tank stable at 78, if I had a single day at 82, growth stopped, everything looked stressed, and it took a couple weeks to recover. Now nothing cares.

thank you Rich----but have you not noticed any conditions that help with coral growth etc rather then just survival rates?

[capn_hylinur]

oops--sorry I didn't read the rest of your post--duh I need a coffee

[RichConley]

Originally posted by capn_hylinur
oops--sorry I didn't read the rest of your post--duh I need a coffee

Naw, I was editing and adding on when you were posting

I think the major issue here is that we're talking about two different sets of data.


People who keep temperature stable, have a spike, lose some corals and scream "My temp went to 84, and I lost these 3 corals, theres no way I'm letting my temp bounce around", which, IMO, is a perfectly logical leap.

The problem is that the stable conditions are what is causing the spike to be deadly, and its tough to get a tank out of that 'stable rutt' without killing things, but once you do, the tank becomes much more resilient, and much happier.

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by RichConley
(72)78-85(91). Had a couple of days where i've hit almost 92, and a couple days as low as 72. No losses.No fish, no corals, nothing.

The 72 is way lower than I like to be, but the heaters come out of the tank in June, and if I have a cold night, thats what happens. The days I hit 90, were days when it was hot, humid, and I forgot to make sure the fans were plugged in.


As to better health, better colors in the SPS, better growth, etc. When I was keeping the tank stable at 78, if I had a single day at 82, growth stopped, everything looked stressed, and it took a couple weeks to recover. Now nothing cares.

I guess this goes back to what Greenbean stated in the beginning--that we actually teach our corals ect to become dependant on a certain range by narrowing it for them--then when fluctuation occurs they are affected--kind of like a self fullfilling profacy

speaking of being affected by change--is there not a spell check that's available--can't believe how bad my spelling has gotten since not using a word processor

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by aninjaatemyshoe
"Another misconception I have had cleared up is around the actual value a u.v. sterilizer has.
Very few experienced people have been sold on their performance.
Using a sterilzer along with a refugium can be counter productive destroying some of the copopods etc that you are trying to supply the main tank."

First of all, UV sterilizers have to be running at a low enough flow rate and a high enough intensity to kill copepods, which require more uw/cm2 than most of the strongest stuff we're trying to kill (parasites, for instance). Then consider that most protein skimmers, especially needlewheel ones, probably result in more copepod fatalities than your average UV sterilizer. And finally consider that many people I know of use them and still report having tons of pods.



I certainly don't think that UV sterilizers are necessary for this hobby. However, they do seem to help clarify the water, keep down certain algae, and are good for avoiding certain diseases. The reason why experienced reefers tend to not gravitate towards buying a UV sterilizer is because they are doing a good job of keeping the aforementioned in check without one.

Gee--I feel lonely out here on the chopping block all by myself. Maybe some of the guys that convinced me to take off my uv sterilzer will join me at the plate

[greenbean36191]

Is there a link to access this work by Brian Helmuth? I'd like to read it.

I don't think it's available anywhere for free. If you want to look it up a good one is:
Castillo, K.D. and Helmuth, B.S.T., 2005. Influence of thermal history on the response of Montastrea annularis to short-term temperature exposure. Marine Biology. 148, 261-270.

"Scleractinian corals are stenothermic, but their ability to tolerate elevated seawater temperatures likely varies with their history of thermal exposure (Coles and Jokiel 1977). That is, corals that have been exposed more frequently to fluctuations in seawater temperatures or to elevated temperatures may be better able to withstand temperature extremes (Coles and Jokiel 1977; Moberg et
al. 1997; Brown et al. 2002)."

"The present study showed that ambient seawater temperature experienced by inner lagoon reef M. annularis was significantly higher than temperatures on the outer barrier reef at an equivalent depth during a non-bleaching year. Our respirometry measurements suggest that this observed difference in thermal history may lead to a decreased physiological response by inner lagoon reef M. annularis when exposed to elevated temperature."

"At both inner and outer reef sites, our data show significant high-frequency variability in thermal regimes, especially during the summer months. Temperature changes of up to 2C [~4.5F] were recorded on a daily basis... Importantly, our measurements of photosynthesis and respiration suggest that M. annularis responds physiologically to these changes in temperature."

Others to take a look at:
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.

Coles, S.L. and Jokiel, P.L., 1977. Effects of temperature on photosynthesis and respiration in hermatypic corals. Marine Biology. 43, 209-216.

[greenbean36191]

A benefit of UV is taking out water-borne pathogens and algae spore. After 18 months of battling muddy brown water, a UV unit cleaned up my tank overnight.

There are certainly benefits to using UV. Oxidizing organics and improving water clarity being the chief one. The point is that when a person asks about using UV they're usually warned that it will kill everything good or bad and will have a negative impact on food availability, filtering capacity, or diversity. They're also promoted as a way of controlling pathogens. There are numerous studies that show that on recirculating systems, neither one is true. Even in idealized theoretical models their impact has been shown to be limited.

Maybe some of the guys that convinced me to take off my uv sterilzer will join me at the plate

Your sterilizer was running in line after your refugium, reducing the effectiveness of the fuge.

[greenbean36191]

i personally worry alot about temp swings.. why? because i had a considerably higher temp swing then i normally do this summer in Boston when my tank hit 88. It was consistantly at 79-83 for a long time. 5 degrees doesn't sound like much, but it killed, 5 flame wrasse, rhomboids, lineatus, helfrich, tiny goldflake.... and started to deteriorate my hammer corals and killed 5 frags of SPS.

A 5 degree excursion above the normal maximum is a big deal, especially when it gets to 88 which is entering the lethal range for some species. It's not the same thing as a 5 degree daily fluctuation. Also see Rich's last comment.

Isn't it a proven fact that if the temp fluctuates more the 4 degrees in a 12 hour period it can cause enough stress on fish to cause ich? I've heard that multiple times from different "experts".

Nope.

[Fish Filet]

Misconception: Noobs know nothing.


Conclusion: When you assume, you make an @$$ out of you and me, both.

[virginiadiver69]

cayars, Do you have any pics of your system? Sounds really interesting.

[Sk8r]

I'd add another misconception: that kalk is hard to do. It scared me off for a while, and then I realized it was simpler than what I was doing.
Related misconception: kalk is dangerous---easy to overdose. Not actually as dangerous as fresh water itself, imho. I've accidentally shot a limited amount of kalk slurry into my tank---but far more than I'd have counted safe--- and had no ill effect.

I'd say over all it's much safer than the numerous ways a newbie can screw up buffer/calcium dosing by hand.

[HBtank]

Originally posted by Sk8r
I'd add another misconception: that kalk is hard to do. It scared me off for a while, and then I realized it was simpler than what I was doing.
Related misconception: kalk is dangerous---easy to overdose. Not actually as dangerous as fresh water itself, imho. I've accidentally shot a limited amount of kalk slurry into my tank---but far more than I'd have counted safe--- and had no ill effect.

I'd say over all it's much safer than the numerous ways a newbie can screw up buffer/calcium dosing by hand.

I understand your point, but do you really consider my ATO going crazy and dumping 3 gallons of freshwater into my 100 gallon system to be more dangerous than it dumping 3 gallons of super-saturated kalk solution into my tank??

I find it hard to believe you think freshwater is more dangerous than kalk.

Anyways, just an opinion from a guy who has read more than his fair share of kalk ATO disasters. Why I chose FW ATO and two-part dosing.