The importance of keeping consistent parameters

[Charterreefer]

I am in fact ordering some ASAP. Few years ago had an outbreak and bought those nudis and the matted file fish. They disappeared and thought the nudis did it. Well this outbreak I have had the nudis for 4 months and they do a good job but not nearly fast enough. I feed too much and the aiptasia spread too fast. I believe the file fish must have been doing the bulk of the work.

I tried nudis too. I didn't have much luck with them.

I seemed to remember it taking around 3 weeks to notice anything after putting the filefish in my tank. It was a drab green color, I'm pretty sure it was a Acreichthys tomentosus . Within about 3 -4 months most of the aiptasia were gone. I had a 125 gallon at the time. I don't know the size of your current system but one was enough for mine.

 

[bif24701]

I tried nudis too. I didn't have much luck with them.

I seemed to remember it taking around 3 weeks to notice anything after putting the filefish in my tank. It was a drab green color, I'm pretty sure it was a Acreichthys tomentosus . Within about 3 -4 months most of the aiptasia were gone. I had a 125 gallon at the time. I don't know the size of your current system but one was enough for mine.

That exactly how it went for me last time. I got both the nudis and the File Fish at the same time, 4 months later they where gone in about 2-4 weeks. I couldn’t tell if it was mostly the Nudis or fish but I had thousands (1,000’s!) of aptasia by that point all where gone quick. One fish and by the 4 month the 8 nudis has became hundreds! They reproduced very well the last time, not so well this go around. Maybe it was both.

I can tell you that the nudis do work and can reproduce enough and quickly to help control aptasia. However when you have as many as I had/have they need help. Hopefully they won’t all starve this time and enough will stick around to prevent them from coming back.

Just before I pull the trigger online I called a LFS in the next county and luckily he has one and it’s apparently has already cleaned three large tanks there. So I’m going to drive over there in the morning. Only about an hour an half one way. He had a lot of acros too so that’s a bonus.

 

[Charterreefer]

That should do the trick!

 

[drawman]

Hate to pick on you, but this is not correct. RHF, for all his awesomeness, does not make it true. Richard Ross has shown this as well. There was also a scientific publication showing that PO4 increased growth in a particular Acropora, though it also found this growth to be more brittle.

https://reefbuilders.com/2011/12/05/acropora-phosphate-growth/

After keeping genetically distinct samples of Acropora muriata in the three treatments for four months the corals were analyzed for length, weight, density and even coloration of the growth margins. The Acropora grew in all four treatments: slowest at the lowest level of phosphate and they grew fastest at the high phosphate concentration of 0.5mg/l. The study notes that although phosphate increased overall growth, it led to lower skeletal density – this is perhaps not that much of an issue in aquariums but in the wild it would lead to more brittle branches that would be more susceptible to breaking in strong flow.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative but I'm an older reefer (54) who, unfortunately, is still fairly new at growing acros. I'm in my 5th year, with only 2 successful years under my belt. I have been told so much wrong information, or incomplete information, or opinions presented as facts with the best intentions, usually because the person giving the information has mistaken reef knowledge and accepted reef science as fact. Only controlled experiments can produce reliable results.

So the experiments in Randy's article are not true and not science?

I wasn't aware of that paper and it's good to see, however it doesn't automatically disqualify other research as not scientific.

But I am not one for parroting information. I showed my tank and winning the acro growout contest with 0 detectable phosphate. If one doesn't like that growth or looks of that system that's perfectly fine, but ime don't listen to people without seeing what they have accomplished in the hobby.

I think the big thing is to take this literature with a grain of salt. This science is emerging and it is tough to conclude scientific fact from one study alone. However, numerous studies help us to build a scientific story that carries more weight. Also, repeat studies will really help to solidify that foundation.

I think markalot touches on a great point that in our aquariums stability is the most important variable. It may also be beneficial to aim for lower phosphate levels as some corals may do better at filling this biological niche. That said, chasing numbers is never a good thing and acros do not like changes. Zero PO4 is certainly a bad thing - I don't mean as a value from test kits but more as an input from food and other sources.

 

[hart24601]

I think the big thing is to take this literature with a grain of salt. This science is emerging and it is tough to conclude scientific fact from one study alone. However, numerous studies help us to build a scientific story that carries more weight. Also, repeat studies will really help to solidify that foundation.

I think markalot touches on a great point that in our aquariums stability is the most important variable. It may also be beneficial to aim for lower phosphate levels as some corals may do better at filling this biological niche. That said, chasing numbers is never a good thing and acros do not like changes. Zero PO4 is certainly a bad thing - I don't mean as a value from test kits but more as an input from food and other sources.

I never tried to come across as saying stability doesn't matter, or science doesn't evolve. Just that Randy was referencing studies just like the RB article did, all published peer reviewed literature. I have worked in science for decades at Pfizer, Bayer and DuPont in the labs and there is not really a thing as scientific fact. Just observations that we can sometimes model.

Anywho I don't have anything more to contribute to this thread, but I did want to clarify I never intended to suggest stability didn't matter. Now there is another debate about if coral can be acclimated to large swings, temp is a clear parameter if you search in RC some suggesting that allowing temp to vary acclimates the coral to change and "buffers" the tank in the event of a heat failure. There are also some pico systems, like one I have, that grow sps like acros and only use 1WC of 100% a week, allowing alk to drop quite a bit before jacking it back up with a W/C and no harm comes presumably from the coral becoming acclimated as small frags. But those are more specialized circumstances and the exception, not the norm.

 

[drawman]

I never tried to come across as saying stability doesn't matter, or science doesn't evolve. Just that Randy was referencing studies just like the RB article did, all published peer reviewed literature. I have worked in science for decades at Pfizer, Bayer and DuPont in the labs and there is not really a thing as scientific fact. Just observations that we can sometimes model.

Anywho I don't have anything more to contribute to this thread, but I did want to clarify I never intended to suggest stability didn't matter. Now there is another debate about if coral can be acclimated to large swings, temp is a clear parameter if you search in RC some suggesting that allowing temp to vary acclimates the coral to change and "buffers" the tank in the event of a heat failure. There are also some pico systems, like one I have, that grow sps like acros and only use 1WC of 100% a week, allowing alk to drop quite a bit before jacking it back up with a W/C and no harm comes presumably from the coral becoming acclimated as small frags. But those are more specialized circumstances and the exception, not the norm.

I couldn't agree with you more . I also have a background in research and agree scientific fact is not a thing. Instead, we build a story and get closer and closer to what is actually going on with every study. I do agree that PO4 levels should be controlled and I try to follow that model. In contrast, acros seem to be incredibly adaptive and once settled in will thrive at many levels of PO4 (that's not to say they may grow faster at lower levels across the spectrum of all controlled environments). I think we pretty much agree and it's a fun discussion either way.

 

[Charterreefer]

There are a lot of papers out there with empirical data. Many of which seem to be taken as scientific fact by laypeople. This seems to create a lot of confusion amongst our community sometimes. The more scientific of us out there know otherwise. Aren't these hypotheses? I have worked in research myself and feel I'm comfortable with the scientific method. I have been reefkeeping a long time and have read about many concepts and ideas and likewise have seen many come and go. I was presenting empirical data in a methodical way, being that I was changing one parameter and observing what else was changing as a result. I was trying to present clear cut results. A hypothesis if you will, in hopes of generating a healthy discussion. I think there were some great posts. It went off in a few directions and was all good.

 

[jda]

Without another study and peer review, they are really just hypothesis... perhaps well founded, but still not really "proven." Even after all of this, the scientific community will judge the work.

Also, everybody forgets that there is a baseline. Nature is the baseline until PROVEN otherwise... it should not be that we have to prove that nature is right (I hate that hobbyists like to do this). Full spectrum lighting with all of the colors of high intensity, low N and P, NSW parameters all work in nature.

When a well-founded study supports nature, it nearly always has more legitimacy.

 

[jda]

Also, there are many, many real studies that have been proven again and again that do not line up with nature that nobody understands, or humankind lacks the ability to test and/or comprehend. When in doubt, always go with nature.