Common Misconceptions In the Hobby

[reefer1024]

Rich I think you are dead on in regards to temp. The more you allow your tank to fluctuate the more resistant to extremes it will be. My reef normally swings between 79.5 and 83 with the occasional 85 on a really hot day. Yesterday it was almost 100 where I live and I forgot to turn the air conditioner on when i left. I got home at 8pm to find my tank was 88.4. To my amazement all SPS, LPS, zoas, rics, and fish where perfectly fine.

Here are a few more myths:

1. Nano tanks will have unstable salinity compared to larger tanks. The rate salinity changes is controlled by 3 things. The amount of surface area in relation to the volume of the system. Temperature and air flow over the waters surface. In many cases a very large tank will be less stable then a very small one. (I think the same is true for many other things in a nano, but I'm not trying to write a novel here.)

2. I often hear people say that they are just going to add a shrimp to their overstocked tank because they are already at the limit of fish. Hate to break it to you, but shrimp eat and poop too.

[USC-fan]

/\/\/\1 is true.

[davidryder]

I'm not sure if these are misconceptions; they sound to me more like guidelines with a few caveats.

Anyway, good read.

[davidryder]

Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. Everyone seems to have an expert opinion on everything. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

[Peter Eichler]

17ish.) You should test for nitrites regularly since they are toxic to saltwater aquarium inhabitants.

Nitrites will only cause apparent stress in most saltwater fish and invertebrates at VERY high levels. Some marine fish and invertebrates have shown to be tolerant of nitrite well in excess of 1000ppm.

Conclusion: After the initial nitrogen cycle is complete there is little to no reason to ever test for nitrites again in a marine aquarium.

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by greenbean36191
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.


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

Yeah up in the sky--its a bird--its a plane--no it's super greenbean to the rescue

thanks for the post---if the "certain" benifit is that they will enhance water quality can't you get the same result with running carbon in a phosban reactor(a lot cheaper too)

[USC-fan]

Originally posted by davidryder
Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. Everyone seems to have an expert opinion on everything. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

I thought you just put garlic on the food to make the fish eat. I did this a couple times when i put new fish in my tank. Seems to help....

[davidryder]

I don't really have an opinion on the use of garlic (or experience for that matter) I was just using it as a simple example. I'm sure somebody knows though.

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by davidryder
Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. Everyone seems to have an expert opinion on everything. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

Since you see a lot of them, point them out and put them up for debate... To me, the cause and effect relationship is why a lot of these misconceptions exist in the first place. Blindly following what's popular rather than questioning things is certainly another big reason why they exist.

I don't expect people accept what I and others are saying in this thread as gosphel. However, at least very least hopefully it will cause some people to take a step back and question why they're doing things the way they are. Also, hopefully it will make some people stop recycling incorrect information over and over again.

[davidryder]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
Since you see a lot of them, point them out and put them up for debate... To me, the cause and effect relationship is why a lot of these misconceptions exist in the first place. Blindly following what's popular rather than questioning things is certainly another big reason why they exist.

I don't expect people accept what I and others are saying in this thread as gosphel. However, at least very least hopefully it will cause some people to take a step back and question why they're doing things the way they are. Also, hopefully it will make some people stop recycling incorrect information over and over again.

Well, I'm totally with you about awareness and regurgitation. Too many state opinions as fact and practically copy&paste info from other threads.

The temp thing is what has really been sticking out to me... I have never tried to regulate my temp (don't even have a heater) BUT I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that just because you at some point stopped regulating your temperature at some point everything looked healthier. I neither agree nor disagree about temp regulation causing harm but I don't think that it being casually observed by a handful of hobbyists makes it fact - or guideline for that matter. I obviously don't care about regulation - however - for the purpose of algae control alone I would like to see my temps as low as possible.

Anyway, I am extremely skeptical when it comes to advice or secondhand information. Healthy skeptical - not conspiracy theory skeptical I am very reluctant to repeat information that I'm not positive about. And don't get me wrong I haven't dismissed any thoughts or ideas from this thread (well, maybe 1 or 2), but I am wary about it.

[Sk8r]

HBtank---don't know about the super-saturated kalk bit: but I dropped about a gallon of kalk bottom slurry into my 54 [80 total gallons] with less problem than I did when I dumped about 5 g of fresh ro/di into a 54 with 64 total gallons...but I can agree with you, that topoff disasters are in general among the worst and most common disasters among those just starting with saltwater tanks.

Since I finally got all my topoff-related switches on one power strip with an easy 'off' button my life has been much calmer. I've now systematized water changes with the mantra "first cut off the ATO and THEN draw water from your tank...."

I also use a kalk reactor, which makes consistent concentration of the kalkwasser easier.

[Peter Eichler]

Thanks to the mods for correcting my Bitburger induced spelling of misconception! I'd also like to thank Bitburger for giving me the the inspiration to create this thread. In fact I think I may have found the reason for German superiority in aquarium keeping for so many years. Drink Bitburger and you can have a reef aquarium that looks like this in no time!

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-08/totm/index.php

[davidryder]

That is an amazing aquarium...Peter are you on a binge?

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by davidryder
Well, I'm totally with you about awareness and regurgitation. Too many state opinions as fact and practically copy&paste info from other threads.

The temp thing is what has really been sticking out to me... I have never tried to regulate my temp (don't even have a heater) BUT I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that just because you at some point stopped regulating your temperature at some point everything looked healthier. I neither agree nor disagree about temp regulation causing harm but I don't think that it being casually observed by a handful of hobbyists makes it fact - or guideline for that matter. I obviously don't care about regulation - however - for the purpose of algae control alone I would like to see my temps as low as possible.

Anyway, I am extremely skeptical when it comes to advice or secondhand information. Healthy skeptical - not conspiracy theory skeptical I am very reluctant to repeat information that I'm not positive about. And don't get me wrong I haven't dismissed any thoughts or ideas from this thread (well, maybe 1 or 2), but I am wary about it.

I think you and others have read into my comments about temperature fluctuations a little too much. Perhaps it was how I worded it, or maybe it's simply because always keeping your temperature stable has been pounded into people for many years. The real purpose of posting it was to let people know that little fluctuations in temperature many experience for MH lights and other factors are not the big problem they've been made out to be. As an aside I pointed out that fluctuations may actually beneficial, but I'm but no means suggesting that people work towards having temperature fluctuations if they don't already have them.

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by davidryder
That is an amazing aquarium...Peter are you on a binge?

I haven't stopped drinking Bitburger in 4 days. In that time my corals have all doubled in size and "colored up"!

Someone get me an endorsement deal!

[davidryder]

[davidryder]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
I think you and others have read into my commenst about temperature fluctuations a little too much. Perhaps it was how I worded it, or maybe it's simply because always keeping your temperature stable has been pounded into people for many years. The real purpose of posting it was to let people know that little fluctuations in temperature many experience for MH lights and other factors are not the big problem they've been made out to be. As an aside I pointed out that fluctuations may actually beneficial, but I'm but no means suggesting that people work towards having temperature fluctuations if they don't already have them.

Sorry, I was more or less referring to the debate that ensued your comment

[thejrc]

All temp fluctuation arguments and kalk arguments aside there is one that was brought up (somewhat) in here that I have been experimenting with myself here. The idea that U.V. sterilizers will kill "pods" along with the needlewheel emaciating them.

I've been a bit too attached to harpacticoid copepods lately (or so my friends and neighbors think) and one of the nifty things I have done to experiment is to run a culture through UV as well as an impeller pump. I will tell you this from MY personal experience (once again, I am a "garage" expert at most, and thus... not an expert at all...)

Needlewheels DO shred copepods in the copepodite (adult) stages but many in the naupliar stages will still make it through. I've been trying to come up with a tide pool simulation and have been playing with several ideas with the fear that a pump will tear these guys apart and have found through examination of population in 5ml samples that impeller pumps with larger impellers do not affect population at all. This would make sense as the impeller blades are flat and have a tendancy to push water with very little "cutting" through the tension like a needle wheel would.

As far as U.V. goes, as stated before will need a very slow flow rate and high exposure to be effective against a lot of the items found in our reef tanks. I used a current gamma 8 watt UV unit inline with a maxijet 1200 on one of my cultures as a test with no measurable population loss, in fact this culture seems to have grown faster (most likely due to flow related causes and NOT the UV sterilizer).

While I'm still playing with these features, I must debunk the "pumps kill your pods" misconception as impeller pumps have had no effect on several of my cultures. The U.V. myths are still yet to be fully explored but without prolonged exposure I fail to see how larger sized organisms like copepods and amphipods can truly be affected, what drives this nail even deeper is that in order to cycle a tanks contents through a U.V. Sterilizer at a low enough flow rate but large enough capacity to erradicate parasites and bacteria effectively it would require one hell of a large unit.

Awesome thread BTW

[Peter Eichler]

Originally posted by thejrc
All temp fluctuation arguments and kalk arguments aside there is one that was brought up (somewhat) in here that I have been experimenting with myself here. The idea that U.V. sterilizers will kill "pods" along with the needlewheel emaciating them.

I've been a bit too attached to harpacticoid copepods lately (or so my friends and neighbors think) and one of the nifty things I have done to experiment is to run a culture through UV as well as an impeller pump. I will tell you this from MY personal experience (once again, I am a "garage" expert at most, and thus... not an expert at all...)

Needlewheels DO shred copepods in the copepodite (adult) stages but many in the naupliar stages will still make it through. I've been trying to come up with a tide pool simulation and have been playing with several ideas with the fear that a pump will tear these guys apart and have found through examination of population in 5ml samples that impeller pumps with larger impellers do not affect population at all. This would make sense as the impeller blades are flat and have a tendancy to push water with very little "cutting" through the tension like a needle wheel would.

As far as U.V. goes, as stated before will need a very slow flow rate and high exposure to be effective against a lot of the items found in our reef tanks. I used a current gamma 8 watt UV unit inline with a maxijet 1200 on one of my cultures as a test with no measurable population loss, in fact this culture seems to have grown faster (most likely due to flow related causes and NOT the UV sterilizer).

While I'm still playing with these features, I must debunk the "pumps kill your pods" misconception as impeller pumps have had no effect on several of my cultures. The U.V. myths are still yet to be fully explored but without prolonged exposure I fail to see how larger sized organisms like copepods and amphipods can truly be affected, what drives this nail even deeper is that in order to cycle a tanks contents through a U.V. Sterilizer at a low enough flow rate but large enough capacity to erradicate parasites and bacteria effectively it would require one hell of a large unit.

Awesome thread BTW

Back in the good old days when the Jaubery method was first introduced to the hobby it was suggested by a few "experts" that the use of pumps with an impeller shouldn't be be used since they would decimate the natural plankton populations. There were people trying dump bucket systems thanks to Jaubert and the authors that were touting his methods. There were also people seeking out very expensive screw type pumps that were believed to be less harmful to the "plankton". Around that time once people realized how impractical those solutions were refugiums were born out of the turf scrubbers used by Jaubert. Most of them were designed to be hangon models and the water was pushed through that container so the "plankton" living in the refugium wouldn't come in contact with the pump before it was returned to the system. Some other regugiums has intricate drift systems and some were even air driven IIRC. Some years later some other "experts" as well as aquarists tested the effects of more conventional pumps on the "plankton" population in our aquariums and it was found that overall the populations were not greatly impacted. Which brings us back to today where most people have "refugiums" that are little more than algae scrubbers of a different vain in their sumps.

Some good things happened as a result of the Jaubert method though. Deep sandbeds sprung up from there, which if nothing else made many people realize they have other options besides a bare bottom tank. The use of algae as nutrient export became more common. This is pure speculation on my part but I can't help but think that pumps such as the Turbelle were inspired by some of the beliefs which Jaubert held about plankton populations and conventional pumps. I'm probably forgetting a few as well...

Sorry for the quick/incomplete history lesson

[thejrc]

Back in the good old days when the Jaubery method was first introduced to the hobby it was suggested by a few "experts" that the use of pumps with an impeller shouldn't be be used since they would decimate the natural plankton populations. There were people trying dump bucket systems thanks to Jaubert and the authors that were touting his methods. There were also people seeking out very expensive screw type pumps that were believed to be less harmful to the "plankton". Around that time once people realized how impractical those solutions were refugiums were born out of the turf scrubbers used by Jaubert. Most of them were designed to be hangon models and the water was pushed through that container so the "plankton" living in the refugium wouldn't come in contact with the pump before it was returned to the system. Some other regugiums has intricate drift systems and some were even air driven IIRC. Some years later some other "experts" as well as aquarists tested the effects of more conventional pumps on the "plankton" population in our aquariums and it was found that overall the populations were not greatly impacted. Which brings us back to today where most people have "refugiums" that are little more than algae scrubbers of a different vain in their sumps.

Some good things happened as a result of the Jaubert method though. Deep sandbeds sprung up from there, which if nothing else made many people realize they have other options besides a bare bottom tank. The use of algae as nutrient export became more common. This is pure speculation on my part but I can't help but think that pumps such as the Turbelle were inspired by some of the beliefs which Jaubert held about plankton populations and conventional pumps. I'm probably forgetting a few as well...

Sorry for the quick/incomplete history lesson

No need to apologize at all, in fact it's interesting to learn where this first misconception came from. And I cant argue that many breakthroughs in our vast "hobby" have been the result of misconceptions or simple hobbyist study! I think the perils lie in everyone taking any particular recommendation or finding to heart and falling for the good ole "expert" flaw. In any field of study there have always been so called "experts" and so called "fiddlers and hobbyists" who have argued and debated! It's interesting to see how the idea of argument and debate, and the levels of experts and fiddlers have both funneled quite a bit to a vast majority of discoveries.

Perhaps someday I'll have a "breakthrough" finding with my copepod cultures, I must say it's one of the reasons why even now I sit here in my garage examining worms that have invaded one of my cultures under a cheap garage sale microscope. But I dont think I will ever be able to claim that I am an expert... as I have way too much to learn about everything. (This is one of the reasons why I like this thread in particular).

On the subject of turbelles and worm drive pumps, since I am working on this tide pool simulation it is one of the things I had never considered and it might just be the answer to what I am trying to acheive. I must point out that even out of context thoughts and comments often lead to great ideas in the context of a field of study.

Since we're all in the process of debunking myths, I must ask.....

has anyone studied amphipods at length enough here to say whether or not they really impact copepod populations through ingestion? (laymans terms, do they eat them all up?).

[Peter Eichler]

I'm not sure if what you're asking for exists, but if it does you'll probably find it here.

http://www.imv.uit.no/ommuseet/enheter/zoo/wim/a_e.html

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by Peter Eichler
I haven't stopped drinking Bitburger in 4 days. In that time my corals have all doubled in size and "colored up"!

Someone get me an endorsement deal!

haha another misconception---we have been told all along to dose with vodka and it should have been beer.

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by davidryder
Ok, after reading what I missed since yesterday, I have one:

Misconception: cause and effect relationships created by casual observation by the average/experienced hobbyist is hardly fact and IMO hardly - if at all - usable as evidence.

Example: I started dosing garlic and ich went away; garlic is a cure to ich (simply an example, nothing i stand by)

Anyone see the problem? There are so many variables unaccounted for that are simply not observed and/or recorded by the average hobbyist. A lot of these corrected "misconceptions" seem to be a product of these cause & effect relationships so definitively established by the author. I'm not specifically criticizing anyone but IME this type of information comes and goes over time and hardly holds any ground in the long run.



There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. Everyone seems to have an expert opinion on everything. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

that probably was true 10-15 years ago. for the following reasons:
there has been new technology that has made keeping a reef tank less problematic and more affordable for a huge amount of hobbyists
the internet has made referencing and linking to information and scientests alot easier.
the internet has allowed the sharing of experiences between hobbyists and scientests.
There has been a successful period of time that has allowed "experience' to be blended with "knowledge" and new concepts tried out.
Sites like this one allow the presentation of alot of points of view and discussion-----and this is how misconceptions are best dealt with.

[thejrc]

the internet has made referencing and linking to information and scientests alot easier.
the internet has allowed the sharing of experiences between hobbyists and scientests.
Sites like this one allow the presentation of alot of points of view and discussion-----and this is how misconceptions are best dealt with.

I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the tricky part is the commonly large amount of bad information out there online. Anyone can toss up a site or post information regardless of how good or bad it is with this all powerful thing we call the internet. I explain this in my field of work (information technology) to others in comparison to books very easily by noting that publishers will have editors and a lot more at stake to ensure the information the authors hand them to print is accurate, whereas anyone can post in a forum.

There is a lot of good (and seemingly controversial) information in this thread, it's just impossible to sift through who is right and wrong. Everyone seems to have an expert opinion on everything. It seems the old adage "What works for you may not work for me" applies here - in some cases.

Classic case of reader beware on the downside.... anybody can and should be smart enough to compare multiple sources of information before acting, whether it's in this hobby, or any other area. This has always been true in more complex subjects even before the advent of freely available online forums and information.

The gain is immense though and cannot be discounted, not only does the vast majority of average humanity (non researchers, etc) have freeley available access to a plethora of information, we now have a constantly available real time channel where we can share and explore our own personal findings. Thus increasing the speed and area that research covers at lower monetary costs but higher time costs (sorting the information out).

It's a means of collaboration, and yes in any collaborative effort there is always good info and bad, and there is always a ton of grey area. But without collaboration we will never sort out the three areas and final answers would become a crapshoot at best!

just my 2 cents

[capn_hylinur]

Originally posted by thejrc
I wholeheartedly agree, but I think the tricky part is the commonly large amount of bad information out there online. Anyone can toss up a site or post information regardless of how good or bad it is with this all powerful thing we call the internet. I explain this in my field of work (information technology) to others in comparison to books very easily by noting that publishers will have editors and a lot more at stake to ensure the information the authors hand them to print is accurate, whereas anyone can post in a forum.



Classic case of reader beware on the downside.... anybody can and should be smart enough to compare multiple sources of information before acting, whether it's in this hobby, or any other area. This has always been true in more complex subjects even before the advent of freely available online forums and information.

The gain is immense though and cannot be discounted, not only does the vast majority of average humanity (non researchers, etc) have freeley available access to a plethora of information, we now have a constantly available real time channel where we can share and explore our own personal findings. Thus increasing the speed and area that research covers at lower monetary costs but higher time costs (sorting the information out).

It's a means of collaboration, and yes in any collaborative effort there is always good info and bad, and there is always a ton of grey area. But without collaboration we will never sort out the three areas and final answers would become a crapshoot at best!

just my 2 cents

We share the same occupation---I am not stating something new when I state the internet is still rapidly evolving with more people finding a practical use pleasure what ever to motivate them to learn how to use it.
Gone are the days when one reads the symptoms of prostrate cancer on the net and rush to their doctor demanding the 'plastic glove"
People learn quickly( and we are teaching them) how to evaluate sites, information etc on the net.
This kind of site makes it very easy to check out the experience they have had, what they have had experience in, and who are their supporters.
situation here: I have been chemistry/biology/math/It teacher for 37 years, have 1200 posts in four months, and have one years experince in reef tanks.
Now Greenbean--(for example--it could have been Bertonli, boomer etc etc ) has had 7,000 posts, many years experince , get many different tanks and is a marine biologist)
Whose answers are you really going to put faith in.

Equally, this site provides an excellent communication vehichle where all can discuss their small experinces with experts like we have. any I can't begin to tell you what I have learned today rather then in the past(the old days when the phone was on
the wall instead in your pocket)

IMHO for sure
Scott