Does Po4 directly harm some corals?

[Thales]

This is where I have a bit of an issue. The people who have read the stuff, been in person and listened to the video do not understand all of this. They think that this way is just as good of a method than another, even though you have said that you do not recommend it to everybody. There is not enough care given to the fact that as a presenter, author, etc. that you are seen as an authority and that what you say and present needs to be given as if nobody will never spend another thought except to believe you at face value. This is the burden of being an authority. I think that you have to wear some of the scenario above where they guy did want to be like you, but not all of it since he could have dug in more too - for better or worse, an authority needs to be held, and hold themselves, to a higher standard. This could all be better if, as an authority, it was framed along the lines of "alternative takes" or "how I beat the odds" rather than skepticism about other parts of the hobby. As an authority, you need to lead with the fact that you are an outlier and frame the reasons why stuff work around this premise.

Yeah, I don't know how to handle that any more than I already do. I frame it the way you suggest multiple ways in talks and in articles, but people don't listen or read. I am not sure if I can be held responsible for people acting but not reading the entire article or watching the entire lecture. I used to lead odd cephalopod article with a paragraph about how we don't know much about these animals, and how they are hard to keep and how we don't know about their wild populations, but inevitably, people skipped over it. The second paragraph of every skeptical reefkeeping article has a disclaimer but people skip over it. Don't know what to do about it in a world where the bulk of people also seem to think that is isn't up to them to support the claims they make, but up to others to show their claims to be incorrect. A very strange world we live in, and I think I am exhausted by trying to lead people to water when they don't want to drink.

Can you really keep any kind of coral? Do you have a wide selection of deepwaters, harder plating LPS or the Z&P that die at higher levels of building blocks? These do not have to be expensive or named coral or be popular, but any kind of smooths skinned acropora. I am not talking about high value or named stuff, just species.

I have some of those.

BTW, .53 is not nearly the same as 1.0 or even 2.0. There are a much wider range of tanks that have successes with a variety of critters that operate in this range.

Yep. It was 1.12 in January, been attempting to bring it down for over a year. Something may have hit a tipping point, but it is too early to tell.

Defining thriving is very easy. You can see what this stuff is capable of in other's tank, the ocean, etc. If you think that growing coral faster to support this hobby with fragging and captive grown stuff is a waste, then we are totally on different wavelengths. You might agree more if/when this is all that we have in the hobby.

I didn't say anything was a waste, I said I wasn't interested in it anymore, and that different people have different goals. I suppose I don't agree that the definition of thriving is necessarily 'growing fast enough to sell'share a bunch'.
We could also easily define thriving as sexually reproducing (which is often used with animals as a measure of 'thriving'). I have a some of that in my tank at home, and it is the major part of my current research, but most people don't. I don't think either of those definitions is a helpful/accurate definition of thriving except in a narrow sense, certainly not overly helpful for someone that just wants to enjoy the hobby.

I mostly meant "close up" as a metaphor. The people who post the video and articles are only looking at the tank from 20 feet and not really reading the fine print. Before anybody decides to want to be like this, they should at least read the sentence about not recommending this just because.

Thanks for the clarification. Yep, people should read the entire articles or watch the entire lectures as great care is put into both to make a bigger picture.

Thanks again.

 

[jda]

I cannot wait to see what you are doing for removal. I am sure that there is a massive amount of P bound in your rocks and sand. In some simple experiments that I did with some aragonite, just a tiny about would bind about 55 PPM down to about .16. I think that people underestimate how much aragonite can bind. When chatting with Dr. Holmes Farley, he had a few studies that showed that it would bind even more as concentrations got higher in a very steep exponential fashion. This is a worry that I have for people who are dosing P right now (who already have some, but they want more) that they don't understand that all that they are doing is filling up the aragonite and not really getting any more to the corals that they think that they are helping.

Don't be too disheartened, not everybody skips over those disclaimers and stuff, but I also take a lot of crap in PMs, on the board, for pointing out to people that they are there.

 

[boeingn747]

I also want to point out that people today really have no idea what heavy skimming really is. These current generation of needlewheels with bubble plates and cones are toys compared to the skimmers that we used back then. A good becket, downdraft or even a solid venturi will remove SO much more DOC than the needlewheel of today. I am overgeneralizing a bit because there are a few needlewheels that are really good, but as a whole, they are found lacking.

Also, dry rock loaded with phosphates was not a thing... we got phosphate free live rock from the ocean that was capable of acting as a buffer.

In some ways, it was easier back then to keep stuff low without chasing. It is certainly easier to chase numbers today.

If that is the case then why did the entire industry shift to "different" design. I mean if it's not broke don't fix it, right? If the skimmers of the 90's were so much better at skimming, why are they dinosaurs today?
I mean my old Mac was bomb back in 1989 but pretty sure I'd rather have one from today. I hear what you are saying, I just can't for the life of me understand how anything that was better is not still being used today? You could argue quality and I would be right there with you, but to say that technology of old was far more superior than that of today, yet nobody is making the old technology seems like a pour argument. With that being said, I was not into reefing back in the 90's and have zero experience with said skimmers. I would like to understand why if they were so much better why did we switch?

 

[jda]

These are still made and they still are awesome. You have to pry a LifeReef skimmer out of their owner's dead hands. You have room under a RS Reefer, or whatever, for a larger or external skimmer? Most don't any more. Actual skimmer size probably plays a part. If you have room, try one of these and you will get it.

Unlike a microchip, I don't think that the relationship between bubbles, organic molecules and water has changed in a few millenia, if not longer.

 

[Garf]

If that is the case then why did the entire industry shift to "different" design. I mean if it's not broke don't fix it, right? If the skimmers of the 90's were so much better at skimming, why are they dinosaurs today?
I mean my old Mac was bomb back in 1989 but pretty sure I'd rather have one from today. I hear what you are saying, I just can't for the life of me understand how anything that was better is not still being used today? You could argue quality and I would be right there with you, but to say that technology of old was far more superior than that of today, yet nobody is making the old technology seems like a pour argument. With that being said, I was not into reefing back in the 90's and have zero experience with said skimmers. I would like to understand why if they were so much better why did we switch?

This is an old thread but have you read the paper that @Thales posted? Here’s a little bit for you;

It is apparent that the similarity in k values for the skimmed and the unskimmed tank trials do not support the notion that the skimmer is contributing in any material way to the removal of TOC from the reef tank water. That is, the natural TOC consumers (bacteria and other organisms) are completely adequate for returning the post-feeding TOC levels to approximately baseline values after ~ 24 hrs – the skimmer isn’t required in this process. These observations therefore do not support the conventional wisdom that a skimmer is obligate for lowering and/or maintaining low TOC levels in a reef tank.

 

[boeingn747]

This is an old thread but have you read the paper that @Thales posted? Here’s a little bit for you;

It is apparent that the similarity in k values for the skimmed and the unskimmed tank trials do not support the notion that the skimmer is contributing in any material way to the removal of TOC from the reef tank water. That is, the natural TOC consumers (bacteria and other organisms) are completely adequate for returning the post-feeding TOC levels to approximately baseline values after ~ 24 hrs – the skimmer isn’t required in this process. These observations therefore do not support the conventional wisdom that a skimmer is obligate for lowering and/or maintaining low TOC levels in a reef tank.

Ok, well that is all above my paygrade. I don't know what makes a good skimmer vs. What makes a better one. I am just of the opinion that when technology advances the world advances. In that way of thinking it would be going backwards to redesign a less affective skimmer, and then for the entire industry to adopt that same less affective technology would be taking a step backwards. I just cant believe that one of today's skimmers doesn't far and away exceed a 20year old skimmer in nealry every category across the board except for quality. I am sure a 20 year old skimmer was built way better than todays
china made crap. When you start talking TOC, you start leaving me in the dust. I just don't know enough about that subject to comment. I also understand that this was a old post, and I really didnt intend on bringing it back up. I just was unclear about this statement and figured even though it was 3 years ago it was still relatively relevant. I just wanted to try to understand more than I did is all.

 

[damsels are not mean]

PO4 might be bad but the numbers that people put out as levels they need to keep it at are arbitrary. Many of my favorite "sps dominant" tanks are (or at least have been at time of them discussing the tests) well above any of the recommended thresholds you get on the forums. The truth is we don't really know how much is bad and if your filtration and maintenance are good you are unlikely to get to whatever those levels are.

 

[wrassie86]

I also want to point out that people today really have no idea what heavy skimming really is. These current generation of needlewheels with bubble plates and cones are toys compared to the skimmers that we used back then. A good becket, downdraft or even a solid venturi will remove SO much more DOC than the needlewheel of today. I am overgeneralizing a bit because there are a few needlewheels that are really good, but as a whole, they are found lacking.

Also, dry rock loaded with phosphates was not a thing... we got phosphate free live rock from the ocean that was capable of acting as a buffer.

In some ways, it was easier back then to keep stuff low without chasing. It is certainly easier to chase numbers today.

Thats funny! I was just talking to somebody a few weeks ago about the toy skimmers we have today. I don't think they believed me and said something to the tune of "Todays skimmers are more efficient" My old Beckett was a beast , but also needed a beast of a pump and carbon anywhere the smell might leak out lol.

 

[jda]

I have a few still. I have a ETSS downdraft that I can just set into my frag tank if I need extra skimming - it used to need a Mag 18 at 100+ watts, but I have a AC Sicce or Tunze (I forget and they look nearly the same to me) on it now at like 38 watts, or something like that. The downdrafts don't need the pressure like a becket does, but even then there are probably pumps nowadays that are 1/3 the wattage that would rock these skimmers. I am using a no-name 800 GPH AC pump on my LifeReef and it was as good as a Mag 12 at 3x the wattage.

 

[wrassie86]

I have a few still. I have a ETSS downdraft that I can just set into my frag tank if I need extra skimming - it used to need a Mag 18 at 100+ watts, but I have a AC Sicce or Tunze (I forget and they look nearly the same to me) on it now at like 38 watts, or something like that. The downdrafts don't need the pressure like a becket does, but even then there are probably pumps nowadays that are 1/3 the wattage that would rock these skimmers. I am using a no-name 800 GPH AC pump on my LifeReef and it was as good as a Mag 12 at 3x the wattage.

My last skimmer before I moved and took a break from the hobby was the Aquac EV240 a little touchy but worked good. one of the things I miss is the waste collector and it shutting down the skimmer once full. unlike the one a have today that blows it all back into my sump. oh then there was the build quality.

 

[Graffiti Spot]

I only use mazzei injectors anymore. Becketts always clogged with snails but rock if they are kept clean. When I have lots of water and use heavy carbon source dosing I will use a large needle wheel with a large mazzei skimmer next to it. But the needle wheel always starts to skim less if I am not feeding a ton and the Mazzei skimmer will stay rock solid nasty skimming no matter what. There is a huge difference in the older skimmers vs the new style needle wheels, only people who have used the Beckett, downdraft, or mazzei injectors will understand.
IMO the skimmers changed to become more profitable/sellable and so anyone with a sump could use one. Probably most of the “features” of the newer skimmers don’t make much of a difference in actual doc removal.

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

I only use mazzei injectors anymore. Becketts always clogged with snails but rock if they are kept clean. When I have lots of water and use heavy carbon source dosing I will use a large needle wheel with a large mazzei skimmer next to it. But the needle wheel always starts to skim less if I am not feeding a ton and the Mazzei skimmer will stay rock solid nasty skimming no matter what. There is a huge difference in the older skimmers vs the new style needle wheels, only people who have used the Beckett, downdraft, or mazzei injectors will understand.
IMO the skimmers changed to become more profitable/sellable and so anyone with a sump could use one. Probably most of the “features” of the newer skimmers don’t make much of a difference in actual doc removal.

Pedoconfuego?

 

[homer1475]

Pedoconfuego?

Yup.