Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[ReneReef]

Why do you think the moderators had to intervene several times?

Because of insinuations you make about people asking you questions you refuse to answer.

Folks have been asking for a control, but what is a control, from two accepted control within the community we have the example of brs and aquabiomics.

What is a control?
In the previous threads you have presented yourself as experienced and more experienced than most of the actual scientists asking you questions. You clearly do not know what we mean with controls and their role in the experimental design. This means that you have no scientific experience and no idea how to set up an experiment.

Someone else's experiment is not a control for your own experiment.
Control conditions serve to validate your methods and results.

Also, adding controls alone will not make your findings anymore valid, because you have never defined an appropriate research question and no outcome measure(s) that fit that research question to begin with.

You have been offered all the help you need to formulate proper experiments on several occasions.
Every time you chose to wave that help, because you claim to know more than all of us.

Your writings have been met with nothing more than the appropriate scrutiny. As a R2R community this is our job. Readers need to be able to assess the value and reliability of the provided information.

The ball is in your court to learn and evolve.

 

[sixty_reefer]

This means that you have no scientific experience

I must of posted my personal experiment in the wrong forum, I thought I was in a forum dedicated to reef aquarist.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

How do you know this?

well they don’t understand the carbon cycle in an aquarium…..are you suggesting they are just pretending to not understand it? They don’t understand what carbon limited means and they refuse to learn.

 

[twentyleagues]

I think some are interested in the same thing since the onset, how is this quantifiable? It sounds like there are at least 2 people that are possible experts in the carbon cycle in aquariums that can explain to those of us who dont know it (the rest of us possibly) how to properly test/examine for such pathways and to differentiate the results. That has been a major point of contention since inception.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

I think some are interested in the same thing since the onset, how is this quantifiable? It sounds like there are at least 2 people that are possible experts in the carbon cycle in aquariums that can explain to those of us who dont know it (the rest of us possibly) how to properly test/examine for such pathways and to differentiate the results. That has been a major point of contention since inception.

Bacteria uses organic carbon to grow. As bacteria grow they change your aquarium. The more carbon you provide to the bacteria the more they will grow and faster. A limiting nutrient means that particular nutrient is the limiting factor for growth and stuff. I'm no expert so take it for what you will. The easiest way to test for these changes is to use your calibrated eyeballs. Calibrate them by looking at a lot of aquariums during different phases. Or get a microscope and check out what you are growing.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think some are interested in the same thing since the onset, how is this quantifiable? It sounds like there are at least 2 people that are possible experts in the carbon cycle in aquariums that can explain to those of us who dont know it (the rest of us possibly) how to properly test/examine for such pathways and to differentiate the results. That has been a major point of contention since inception.

N-Doc and e-dna testing are two good tools.

 

[twentyleagues]

N-Doc and e-dna testing are two good tools.

And these are tests you have ran on this tank during the experiment? How does it show what is using what? I am genuinely interested in understanding how to interpret what we see.

 

[sixty_reefer]

And these are tests you have ran on this tank during the experiment? How does it show what is using what? I am genuinely interested in understanding how to interpret what we see.

I’ve been pondering the idea in performing those test.

 

[twentyleagues]

I’ve been pondering the idea in performing those test.

So those tests were not performed during this experiment? I would be interested in seeing the outcome and how one goes about knowing what is what and such. DNA test will tell you whats in the tank but if you (and you would) have many different things show up how do you know what is using what and at what percentage? Is it just from knowledge of said DNA? I am guessing e-doc will illuminate the carbon elements and maybe quantities? at the given time of course.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What part of the timeline is wrong? can you explain how this invalidates his experiments here? I don’t get that part. Does having one tank in multiple threads not allowed?

He can have as many threads and tanks as he wants, absolutely no problem there. The issue is the specified conditions not being disclosed and the overlap that puts the "experiment" further into question. This has been laid out numerous times.

I’ve answered that question a few times already

Your "answers" are avoiding the points being made, still. Explained above.

In addition 10% blue light is no more than moonlight or ambient light for a few hours a day, how would the 10% light affect the rock that not been in the display?

This statement appears to undermine your own observation about the dark period and your pivot to the experiment being about dark vs light. If the "dark" stage was not relevant, why specifically list it in the opening statement as "30 days" and adding rock on day 31? Why then change the stated purpose of the study in post #141 (if I remember) to "dark vs light" and just a page or so back declare the experiment "over" because your observation is that "dark vs light" does not matter?

You had enough time going through all my threads, did you see any rock in any of them.
I’ll also ask you the same question as I’ve asked the other member, what do you understand with the term just over 30 days?

The point is that from the very beginning, your "experiment" is not as you described it. You had a crinoid in the tank for ~15 days of the 30 day "dark" period, with "lights running" and skimmer being turned on and off. This is contrary to the opening statement of this thread and the baseline for this "experiment". Pointed out maybe five or six times now, full stop.

There is folks doing 6 months dark and still experiencing an ugly stage, the dark stage is usually to ensure you have an effective nitrogen cycle. To your point what’s the revelation here?

That is not what the "dark stage" is for. The "dark stage" is to prevent photosynthetic algae from forming before other biofilms and fauna can go through their growth stages. The goal is to allow the tank to mature biologically for some time before the lights come on. Regardless, this has nothing to do with other "tanks". This is about your claims, your tank and your "experiment".

I’ve been pondering the idea in performing those test.

For what purpose? Can you lay out an actual experiment with stated goals, controls, measurements and protocols? Using tools like "N-doc" and "e-dna" can provide data, but exactly how do you plan to use that data to unravel very complex interactions and add understanding? To that end, I don't think you have clearly laid out what it is that you want to understand. We have bounced form "carbon limiting" and "carbon balanced" to "non-nitrate nitrogen" to "dark vs light" and now to "N-doc" and "e-dna". What is the actual subject of study, the hypothesis and the means to prove or disprove?

Saying hey look "xyz are present" at a given time (a snapshot) is not very revealing in terms of nutrient pathways.

 

[irischan]

Is this experiment kind of the idea of KZ method, which is adding organic carbon source from day 0 to promote growth of microfauna to fast-forward the ugly stage?

 

[twentyleagues]

well they don’t understand the carbon cycle in an aquarium…..are you suggesting they are just pretending to not understand it? They don’t understand what carbon limited means and they refuse to learn.

I am suggesting nothing. I am simply wondering how you know they do not when they have not talked about it in this thread. I went back and looked seems they like others (including me) just want to know how you would be able to tell which paths are taken by which traveler and how many of each are being used and available.

 

[twentyleagues]

Bacteria uses organic carbon to grow. As bacteria grow they change your aquarium. The more carbon you provide to the bacteria the more they will grow and faster. A limiting nutrient means that particular nutrient is the limiting factor for growth and stuff. I'm no expert so take it for what you will. The easiest way to test for these changes is to use your calibrated eyeballs. Calibrate them by looking at a lot of aquariums during different phases. Or get a microscope and check out what you are growing.

Yes I know this and I would hazard a guess that some of the other do too. So in this balance/limited experiment you just guesstimate? I have not had an ugly phase in my tank almost a year now I have heavy coralline growth, coral growth. Also contrary to something else I saw post (not saying they are wrong) If I drop in a new piece of dry rock it starts to get coralline on it inside of 4 weeks without any "ugly phase". I started the tank with all dry rock/sand and bottled bacteria. So my tank is carbon balanced by your standards then? I also have not done any carbon dosing just feed the fish, and do a small water change once every couple months since June. Oh not true! I lied I dose afr so I guess I dose a little carbon.

 

[sixty_reefer]

So those tests were not performed during this experiment? I would be interested in seeing the outcome and how one goes about knowing what is what and such. DNA test will tell you whats in the tank but if you (and you would) have many different things show up how do you know what is using what and at what percentage? Is it just from knowledge of said DNA? I am guessing e-doc will illuminate the carbon elements and maybe quantities? at the given time of course.

No, I don’t think the timing is right to perform them just yet. But I will look at including them in the final article, that is not on the current theme of this thread by the way.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is this experiment kind of the idea of KZ method, which is adding organic carbon source from day 0 to promote growth of microfauna to fast-forward the ugly stage?

I’m not aware how the KZ method works.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I am suggesting nothing. I am simply wondering how you know they do not when they have not talked about it in this thread. I went back and looked seems they like others (including me) just want to know how you would be able to tell which paths are taken by which traveler and how many of each are being used and available.

The answer for that question will be more clearer once I consolidate all the information in one place.
The multiple different experiments are just observations that may be included in the final works. The idea was to have multiple links to illustrate different parts of the overall experiment.

 

[twentyleagues]

No, I don’t think the timing is right to perform them just yet. But I will look at including them in the final article, that is not on the current theme of this thread by the way.

Wait what?
If N-doc and e-DNA dont pertain why bring them up when I asked?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Wait what?
If N-doc and e-DNA dont pertain why bring them up when I asked?

You asked how to quantify/test. I’ve answered it

 

[twentyleagues]

The answer for that question will be more clearer once I consolidate all the information in one place.
The multiple different experiments are just observations that may be included in the final works. The idea was to have multiple links to illustrate different parts of the overall experiment.

Well I guess I look forward to that then.

 

[BeanAnimal]

No, I don’t think the timing is right to perform them just yet. But I will look at including them in the final article, that is not on the current theme of this thread by the way.

The answer for that question will be more clearer once I consolidate all the information in one place.
The multiple different experiments are just observations that may be included in the final works. The idea was to have multiple links to illustrate different parts of the overall experiment.

Help me understand:

All of these threads and "experiments," where you’ve faced almost universal pushback on your understanding, ideas and claims, are aimed at publishing an "article"? That sounds like research, but it’s being done with no controls, no protocols, and no rigor -- just presented under the guise of research?

When asked directly about your motives, you said this was just about your personal observations and a desire to learn. You pushed back hard when people suggested you were presenting yourself as an expert or had other motives.

You keep saying you’re making no claims, while these threads are full of claims that have been picked apart and shown to be wrong. How do you reconcile that with your plan to turn this into something you’d publish as “final works”?

How do you plan to publish a credible "article" after almost every claim you’ve made has been shot down in real time?