Reef Discussion

[MavG]

thats is still not an excuse to not try something in order to improve.

testing is the main thing, and then experimentation is another, just saying something is too hard is no excuse.

I find the ones that say "water changes are all you need" are the ones that will never, ever be able to achieve one of "those tanks".

If you dont delve into the unknown, expand your horizons, and endevor to learn about ALL areas of a subject or hobby your are involved in, then your never going to get anywhere.

Im sorry but i dont agree at all with your statement, up until now, benchmarking everything and inserting probes into every animal, has not been done. In this case the use of trace elements and dosing for colour enhancement has been done, extensively, LOOK AT ZEOVIT SYSTEMS!!!!!!!!!!

And you also say " I dont see another way currently, that can take the role of hobby defined averages of dosing based on excepted case studies by commercial R&D", but im alsing for people to provide information to prove that water changes are all that is needed, and what amount in relation to stocking density is required, and no one can. So where are these accepted case studies from commerical R & D?

I see a very easy way of that can take the hobby further, people need to pull their heads out their proverbials, and starting to look beyond their own tank. otherwise people are always going to go on a forum and do the first thing that people say.

"Dont worry about trace elements and all that stuff, go and get some damp rid and baking soda, and go and collect some water from the bay,( all of which you have NO control over quality), and youll be fine".

Then all of a sudden, you have created a false mentality in a person new to the hobby, which then compounds the problem and achives ABSOLUTLY NOTHING except for putting the hobby back further.

We need to open our minds to the possibility that everything can be better, and that there isnt just one way to do things.

The problem i see, is that people dont want to admit that someone else out there, maybe trying to make a buisness out of this hobby, has actuallhy done some work and provided a supplement or system to achieve thing like enhanced coloration.

Is it because the people developing or advocating these things are smarter then the people saying "water changes are enough", or that they are jelous of their ability to develop these types of supplements? or is it that they are just blinded by their degree in marine science that they got out of their cornflakes box and by the arrogance that comes with it.

I dont have a degree in ANYTHING, every i know i have researched and learnt myself, and i am open to new ways of doing things.

We as hobbyists need to be mindful of developing the hobby we love ourselves, and strive to improve our knowledge and tanks, and hey maybe even one day make something of it.

If you dont want to learn, contribute, enhance and better yourself and the hobby, then perhaps these kinds of people should not be in it. Or at the very least listen to someone else experience and opinion, and i dont know, jeez, meybe trying it for themselves rather then shoot it down without having any evidence to the contrary except for the fact that they dont agree.

Shitty reality..... YES..... excuse for me, you and anyone else interested in helping and excelling ourselves and others in this hobby.............HELL NO

 

['vspec']

Dude, your passionate I'll give you that!
Just drop it a notch for me, cause your starting to make me nervous :confused: When I get nervous, the left knee goes. When the left knee goes, then I start sliding across the room in my socks and underwear "risky business style" ~ Its not pretty!

If your going to quote me, do it properly, chopping my segments even got me lost, because I didn't realise that was even the context I said it in.
And looking at it below, I still believe it wasn't.

And your points are noted, hence my question. ;)
Short of benchmarking everything, applying new techniques and/or inserting new detection probes into each animal, I dont see another way currently, that can take the role of hobby defined averages of dosing based on excepted case studies by commercial R&D. Blind water changes without analysis will always be the perceived cushion till its stated otherwise. Its a shitty reality.

Now before I get back to your original posting, can we agree that the financial backing within our hobby is the driving force behind most the advancements we have already?
Do we also agree, that this is often subject to business criteria more than total chemistry understanding?


Your posting / question. I've highlighted the relevant bit that I picked up on.

I asked this question in another persons post and there didn't seem to be a conclusive answer.

so i ask this question, Not taking into account the major elements, (alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, potassium) what frequency of water changes, % size and times per cycle (week month) are needed to replce the trace and minor elements (responsible for colour etc) are needed to replace these elements.

the reason i ask this question is:

every time someone asks about using a trace/minor element supplement, its the same answer, "frequent water changes should be all you should need to replace trace elements", AGAIN i am not referring to the major elements, we all know regular water changes replenish these to a certain extenet.

Now, im not saying that water changes dont replenish ALL elements, includeing trace elements to some extent, nor am i trying to induce an argument.

All im asking is, where is the research showing that regular waster changes are ALL thast is needed for supplementation in a mriane aquarium, in particular trace elements, and where in that research is there a correlation between, tank size, stocking density, frequency of water changes and the size of said water changes in order to replace these trace elements?

Indeed, water changes do lesson the amount of supplements needed to be supplemented, and in some tanks, may be all that is needed, however, such a broad statement that i hear all the time, such as regular water changes are all that is needed to replace "trace elements (again forgetting about major elements) is in my opinion preposterous.

trace elements oxidize and are used up every quickly, especially in heavily stocked aquariums, so supplementation of trace elements is not only, i think beneficial, but nessecary, in heavily stocked aquarium, even moderately stocked aquariums, as is supplementation of major elements.

BUT, if someone can show me the research or documented evidence to back up the hypothesis that regular water changes are enough to replace minor and trace elements, then ill take it on board.

Another thing i am interested to hear is WHY people will not add soemthing they cannot test for, is this some stigma that comes from consumers being sick of manufacturers trying to jam another "snake oil" product down their throat, or is there a reason behind this?

As i see it, trace elements, especially in heavily stocked marine aquariums need to be supplemented,, hell, you cant test for ALL the minor and trace elements in Artificial salt mixes, BUT, a lot of people use artificial salt mixes, if trace elements were not needed, why would they include them in artifical salt mixes? otherwise im sure everyone would just be using Sodium chloride, calcium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, magnesium sulphate and potassium chloride and supplementing nothing else.

but, again, show me some hard evidence and research showing the information stating that water changes are all that is needed to replace trace elements and ill take it on board.

lets start a constructive conversation so we can all learn something.

Then you nailed your own question with the logical answer again.

2. my question i put to everyone was, how much water need to be changed to replace the elmeents and keep them at Natural seatwer ratios in order to provide verything for reef inhabitants. This, as i pointed out, will be different in every tank, because the removal of said elements, major, minor or trace elements, will differ depending on the amount of animals removing them, for instance in say a 100 litre tank stocked with 2 corals of exactly the same size, the amount of element, major, minor and trace will be X. In another tank, identical to this, if you put 4 corals, of exactly the same size the removal of said elements would be 2x X.

So my response IMO was justified

And your points are noted, hence my question. ;)
Short of benchmarking everything, applying new techniques and/or inserting new detection probes into each animal, I dont see another way currently, that can take the role of hobby defined averages of dosing based on excepted case studies by commercial R&D. Blind water changes without analysis will always be the perceived cushion till its stated otherwise. Its a shitty reality.

This would apply products that has been commercially produced for this hobby, that has had commercial R&D testing, and on top of that, the best peer review the independents in this hobby can do.(which is harder, because of vested interest within the markets)

Now I'm not exactly active in this field anymore, nor am I spending 5 hrs google searching for possible results.
If you and countless others have not found an answer to your specific question across multiple platforms, then it would stand to reason, that this.....

what frequency of water changes, % size and times per cycle (week month) are needed to replce the trace and minor elements (responsible for colour etc) are needed to replace these elements.

does not exist in a chart form , quite possibly due too many variables.

So I have some suggestions. We pool our contact lists of some of the best minds in this hobby, both here and abroad, and lets find an answer.
Or we start organising the entire process through an institution that is willing to define this answer.

If you have any thoughts, or if there is something I have missed, by all means dude, cause I thought you had asked the correct question to begin with!

 

[MavG]

Alright now thats its laid out i understand your point and totally agree.

Im Glad we got that sorted.

The problem being and we have both agreed on this, that water changes arnt all you need, and im sure youll agree, that if we ask some of the best minds in this hobby (that have an open mind and are not just there to bash products like im sure you know quite a few do) that we still wont find a definiteive answer to my questions i.e. water change ratio to stocking density, because every tank is different.

I also agree that advancements in this hobby have been made buisnesses within this hobby, which is why i cant understand people who are involved in this hobby are so quick to bash products and critisize products, practices and processes that 1. they havent used and 2. they dont understand.

I think however, that even though i asked the right question, there isnt an answer, which was my point as you have picked up on!!!!! so thankyou.

Looking forward to going Tandem with you on here and stomping out the heresay and inaccuracies.

After all, thats what we are here for, and what the whole point of this thread is, and indeed has turned out to be. I think we have hit the nail on the head hard enough for the moment, do you agree?????

 

['vspec']

;)

A Forums of our peers is meant to work in this fashion anyways ~ keeping facts fact and information accurate.
Lets speak to some people on capital hill, and try to net the research pertaining. Even if its fragmented.

 

[MavG]

alright well i suppose it cant hurt to hjave a look around, even if it confrims my already solid suspicions. or just sheds some light on different aspects of water changes in regards to trace, minor and major elements.

 

[MavG]

And yes, a forum is suppose to work like this, but just look at some other forums and the amount of arguing and bashing that goes on there!!!!!!!!!! Lets make a difference lol

 

[192k]

Hey MavG,

I appreciate all the posts you have made in this topic. Looking back, I realized that I was looking for short, quick answers (and many that were given to me).
It's so hard to find reasonable answers to many questions we have.

I apologize if any of my posts some across as harsh and short.

It is good to see someone try to gain a better understanding of everything and be able to relay in real word terms to others. I myself appreciate people who want to gain a better understanding of ecology and marine environments.

It's one thing to set up and successfully maintain a thriving marine environment, it's another to understand what's actually going on at a meliculor level (almost) :)

 

[MavG]

Very true words, ignorance is the biggest enemy here.

 

[MavG]

not your ignorance, but ignorance in the information given to other people by others

 

['vspec']

Yeah its called the public, and generally..... their idiots!.

But this is also one of the reasons I'd say "Soft Licensing" if/ when it should occur, would be a good thing if the learning criteria matched.
People seem to think anything coming from aquatics is a trade commodity, and yes it is, as you still need industry. However with it, brings an inferiority mentality for the animals.
Honestly, the respect aspect for aquatic animals is a learnt skill, unfortunately the majority of the trade thinks other wise.
A monkey could walk out with a fish, and the system of return sales is fine right where it is! I have one word for you ~ Broken!

Its blurry comparing a said fish, to a said dog, however the question still remains; at what point on the animal chain do you stop caring for their complete well-being and wing it without knowledge and respect? (I'd like to say we do this with dogs as well, but we know that's BS)

So if the government shepherds its biosecurity arm, and kicks off more industry involved change, and on top of that a soft licensing policy is drafted. I'd want to have a say that it has to be regulated by the industry itself.
Its also the prefect time to switch the mentality of the industry, and hence the people purchasing. No more instant neo's to 10year olds, no more cute groupers in a nano, no more blank stares when you mention anything regarding a cycle - ......... no more senseless death and carnage full stop! ~ across the entire scope.

You display you can retain some knowledge and pass a test for each grading level, you get your licence and the ability to purchase. Quite simple really. Each level up, still has questions relating to the basics, so your public foundation is a lot more solid.

I typically don't like system of control, however sometime I do see the need for them. Occasionally you need to chop the field at the knees, so you can see the other side.

 

[MagicJ]

Interesting discussion guys, thanks.

Whilst I have never delved into the finer points of water chemistry/composition I have maintained reef tanks for 10 years+, albeit at a relatively basic level. I do agree with the proposition that regular water changes probably don't replenish all of the minor trace elements.

I find the ones that say "water changes are all you need" are the ones that will never, ever be able to achieve one of "those tanks".

That may be true, but not everyone wants to put in the time, effort, and dollars to have one of 'those tanks'. I am sure that the vast majority of reef keepers are relatively happy with what they have and don't feel the need to do anything more.

"Dont worry about trace elements and all that stuff, go and get some damp rid and baking soda, and go and collect some water from the bay,( all of which you have NO control over quality), and youll be fine".

I think you will find that a lot of people do exactly this, and have a relatively successful tank. Could it be improved if they dosed additional products? Probably yes, but that would require additional time, effort and $'s. And any changes may just be incremental and may not justify the additional cost.

I will continue with a previously used analogy - someone may have a mongrel dog that they feed out of a can. The canned food provides all of its daily needs and the dog will probably lead a relatively long and healthy life. Someone else may have a purebred dog that is fed the best food with additional vitamins and minerals. Will it be healthier than the mongrel dog - maybe, but significantly so I'm not so sure.

People want different things from their reef tank. I have a concern that we put these high tech, primarily SPS, tanks up on a pedestal as being the pinnacle that everyone should aspire too. The reality is that only a few dedicated people are able to achieve this type of outcome which potentially leaves a lot of people failing and becoming disillusioned with the hobby.

In my mind, dosing alk, calc and magnesium together with NSW water changes is a relatively cost effective way to maintain a reef tank and we shouldn't put people down just because they don't want to spend the additional dollars required to achieve one of 'those tanks'. Is it ideal, obviously not because, as you have said, we have little control over quality. But, does it produce an environment where our inhabitants can lead a long and healthy life - I believe that it does.

Apologies if this is slightly off topic - I will get off my soap box now :rolleyes

 

[MavG]

firstly,in realtion to VSpec last post, you missing the point of where im going with this. The LFS should be educating people on this, and people should also be learning about as many aspects of their hobby as they can.

Trying to contro their purchasing rights and ability will, no doubt, drive customers away, i have people i know that have never kept fish in their entire life, and jumped straight into a marine tank with my help. A all in one package freshwater system no less, and run an incredibly successful marine tank, to point weher 3 months down the track, they were coming to me with modfications to help them with for skimmers, lights etc.

So controlling the ability of people to purchase, i think thats way left field man, and i have to disagree with you there, because thats pretty outrageous.

teaching them however, and getting them to learn about what they are doing, and help each other through problems, to actually find solutions and reasons for certain processes or problems, thats what im getting at.

If they want to do things thier way, great, but if they dont work, be open to the idea that something else might.

Magic, you will notcie how i said in SOME cases, water changes may be all that is "needed", but trace element supplementation would still be beneficial.



What i want to know, is where is the proof, a clear guidline with volume to tank size to stocking density to the amount of water needing to be changed. As every tank is different is this going to be a hard and fast rule? the answer is no,...... so why keep spreading this crap in the first place?

This is what im getting at, water changes should most defintiely be a part of someones hubandry regime, but its not a silver bullet.

Notice how i also HINTED at the fact, that the so called "experts" are the ones who support this unsubstantiated claim.

When i say people like this are the ones that are never going to have ones of those tanks, what i mean is, these are the people making these bogus sort of claims, they claim they have the best tank, with perfect vibrant colours and great stock thats growing like mad, but they dont, and when you ask them some specific question they give you a blanket answer, regular water changes with NSW, or regurgitate some random crap off the internet, throwing in some fancy words, patching together unrelated information taken out of context, to try and support an idea that makes no sense.

And when you pull them up on it, what happens, they go SILENT!!!!!!!

Its a joke and it needs to change. As i said, yes in some cases it will work, but not all and its deifntiely not a silver bullet.

Im in the process of writing a blog post about trace element supplementation and use,. and their relation to coral colour and benefits etc in using them. So this might spread some more light, (and throw some more fuel on the fire) on this topic.

The point im trying to make in all this is, we have to learn, and be open to new information, just because one person says something, doesnt mean its the only way to do something, nor does it mean they are right, or their statement actually carries any weight at all.

Hell, i look back at some of the things i was doing 2-3 years ago to now and think to myself, why the hell was i doing that in that way. Not that it didn't help me learn.

Look at their tanks, look at their experience and knowledge, look at their tone and attitude, and judge for yourself. Comparing all the while to world class tanks, and then work it out for yourself if you like.

My rant is over, but maybe my next post on my blog might shed some more light, dont hassle me about it though, im still trying to get my head around the modes of action taking place and im only a third of the way through it.

 

['vspec']

I'll agree with that, very left wing.;)
Still doesn't change my opinion on the subject.
I believe house keeping in this industry is well over due. Education as it were, is a joke!

 

[MavG]

well i agree with you there!!!

 

[Fishy]

I would believe that using NSW refreshes all elements, obviously depending on the % of water changed.
In my 250litre tank, a fortnightly change is 40litres or for a real refresh 80litres.
No real issues and cant argue with Mother Nature!

 

[daniel]

Was scrolling through this because of the title and I was thinking to my self surly Matt has commented on here, took some scrolling hahahahahahahahaha. If only they gave us instruction on the nsw containers hey? Haha just pour it in ;) I no many people that just top up with ro/di water don't do any water changes just have the skimmer going properly and have a reactor, also dose a few things and it's fine, grows coralline and everything grows nicely some people can do it some can't, depends on what your dosing and if your doing it correctly, I never understand instructions half the time so I cbz and just do the water changes lol

 

[daniel]

Btw if I repeated anything anyone said sorry, I stopped reading after half way lol eyes got fuzzy