Do “reefers” rely on science or a 6th sense?

MaxTremors

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 20, 2021
Messages
3,625
Reaction score
6,213
Location
Boise
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
90% with science. But many times I’ve had a hard time interpreting what science has to say and the real impact on reef tanks.

Let me elaborate a bit: many stressors are very often useful in our tanks: UV, symbiont limitation, fragging…

Example: is UV important for corals? Science says not at all, it is a stress factor. But for us reefers that stress stimulates pigmentation for many corals and making a nice looking tank.

Is coral pigmentation a health status indication for science? Not at all in many cases (sorry for reefers who disagree, you are not truly reading scientific articles). But it is our goal here! Coral pigmentation for many scleratinian corals is a marker of stress. This is complex.

Is iron important for symbionts? Yeah. But today I believe iron limitation is important. Excess produces brownish corals, les good looking, richer in symbionts and my personal belief is that they even grow much slower.

I believe our tanks are incredibly more rich in nutrients than nature and that creates a very different environment. To me that’s pretty much one of the reasons people keep acros successfully with strong lights. They are NOT providing excess energy for photosynthesis, they are providing a limitation factor for zooxantellae! That is also (IMHO) today we can keep very colorful acros with much less PAR, we just use chemical methods for limitation of symbiont growth (many people are not aware of this even doing it).

That said, scientific articles are an amazing source of information, but to the new to average reefer it may look misleading.

Today I do not keep my tank according to what science dictates, but I surely find a LOT of very useful information.
But you do keep your tank according to what science dictates. You may not be keeping parameters, conditions, lighting, etc identical to a wild reef, but all of the fundamentals in managing a reef, from water chemistry, to lighting, to flow, to nutrition, basically everything we do is based off our collective scientific understanding of biological, chemical, and physical processes/interactions. Even if the average reefer doesn’t know or fully understand why we do the things we do (for example cycling a tank, or the need for flow or intense lighting, or the need to dose a 2 part), it’s still based on years and years of scientific observation and experimentation. The assertion that science doesn’t dictate anything in the hobby is absurd.
 

Screwgunner

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 6, 2020
Messages
1,745
Reaction score
1,637
Location
Millersburg
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Wise words of many nothing good happens fast in a reef tank . 1 year and 6 months and my phosphates are at .1 with a algea scubber alkalinity stays at 7.4 1/2 teaspoon reef builder in every gallon of make up water . Calcium as needed.
If you let the numbers go up a d down your coral will not grow now that I am stable me coral is brighter and bigger and I can almost see them grow. Not to mention I am a proud new Daddy of Lord knows how many green chromis fry.
 

Reef and Dive

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 12, 2018
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
5,117
Location
Brazil
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But you do keep your tank according to what science dictates. You may not be keeping parameters, conditions, lighting, etc identical to a wild reef, but all of the fundamentals in managing a reef, from water chemistry, to lighting, to flow, to nutrition, basically everything we do is based off our collective scientific understanding of biological, chemical, and physical processes/interactions. Even if the average reefer doesn’t know or fully understand why we do the things we do (for example cycling a tank, or the need for flow or intense lighting, or the need to dose a 2 part), it’s still based on years and years of scientific observation and experimentation. The assertion that science doesn’t dictate anything in the hobby is absurd.
As the examples I’ve said….

Science dictates UV lights is harmful to corals.



Most of us use (including myself) plenty of UV (actually more violet than UV) to stimulate pigmentation…. I just understand the process and use it as a controled source of tool for our goals.

Symbiodinium concentration is related to coral health in many articles:



But we very often intentionally reduce their concentration for more intense colors (this is a fact) and sometimes for more growth (this is just my controversial opinion).

Science is not actually dictating what should be done in a reef tank, but misinterpreting what many studies show to be health indicators could mislead us the wrong direction.

Here I differentiate true scientific articles from good aquarium literature, that involves many respected authors with a huge experience on aquarium care. Most of this books are excellent references for us. As an example, I have never ever read a scientific article on 2 part dosing. That is good and serious work of aquarists, but that is not really science…
 

jabberwock

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 14, 2018
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
4,004
Location
in front of my computer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But you do keep your tank according to what science dictates. You may not be keeping parameters, conditions, lighting, etc identical to a wild reef, but all of the fundamentals in managing a reef, from water chemistry, to lighting, to flow, to nutrition, basically everything we do is based off our collective scientific understanding of biological, chemical, and physical processes/interactions. Even if the average reefer doesn’t know or fully understand why we do the things we do (for example cycling a tank, or the need for flow or intense lighting, or the need to dose a 2 part), it’s still based on years and years of scientific observation and experimentation. The assertion that science doesn’t dictate anything in the hobby is absurd.
The word "dictate" does not exist in the scientific method.
 

jabberwock

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 14, 2018
Messages
3,382
Reaction score
4,004
Location
in front of my computer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
As the examples I’ve said….

Science dictates UV lights is harmful to corals.



Most of us use (including myself) plenty of UV (actually more violet than UV) to stimulate pigmentation…. I just understand the process and use it as a controled source of tool for our goals.

Symbiodinium concentration is related to coral health in many articles:



But we very often intentionally reduce their concentration for more intense colors (this is a fact) and sometimes for more growth (this is just my controversial opinion).

Science is not actually dictating what should be done in a reef tank, but misinterpreting what many studies show to be health indicators could mislead us the wrong direction.

Here I differentiate true scientific articles from good aquarium literature, that involves many respected authors with a huge experience on aquarium care. Most of this books are excellent references for us. As an example, I have never ever read a scientific article on 2 part dosing. That is good and serious work of aquarists, but that is not really science…
Well spoken.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,553
Reaction score
62,860
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Here I differentiate true scientific articles from good aquarium literature, that involves many respected authors with a huge experience on aquarium care. Most of this books are excellent references for us. As an example, I have never ever read a scientific article on 2 part dosing. That is good and serious work of aquarists, but that is not really science…

Of course it is science. How do you suppose a two part was invented? Even trial and error is science, but the two part you mentioned (as well as every other calcium and alkalinity dosing method we use) was developed by careful application of science, and so anyone using a two part is using the product of scientific efforts.
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,553
Reaction score
62,860
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Personally, I think this whole discussion is a bit odd. Every reefers uses science since
So like many of you, I’ve been doing this for a long time. And I find the science behind it interesting and helpful but I’m not a numbers chaser. And certainly the consensus is “don’t chase numbers”! And numbers in our hobby often represent science. But as I share with friends about my successes in this beautiful hobby, I can’t help but feel that my success is often driven by chance or gut feeling that has worked for me in times past. And I go for it!

1. Do you have a “Reefing book” that you observed word for word?
2. Or do you have a 6th sense?
19335F75-0594-428E-BD13-E63EF33E1C58.jpeg


Authors can redefine words as they choose, but to claim that science is numbers is just not correct.

True sixth sense would be to wake up in the morning had before you even see your tank, and have a gut feeling you should add add calcium.

Science is to wake up in the morning, find a coral seems not at its best, and you dose calcium to see if it helps, either as a first time test, or because that worked int he past..

What worked in the past is science. You did something, observed something, and then tried it again because it works. That is EXACTYL what science is.

Perhaps this thread would make more sense if it asked if you make decisions based off of numbers (analytical science), or off of other observations (observational science) or based on no observations at all (sixth sense)
 

Randy Holmes-Farley

Reef Chemist
View Badges
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
66,553
Reaction score
62,860
Location
Arlington, Massachusetts, United States
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Science is not actually dictating what should be done in a reef tank, but misinterpreting what many studies show to be health indicators could mislead us the wrong direction.

I have no doubt that misunderstanding of science or misapplication of science is a big problem in the hobby. HUGE.
 

gbru316

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
May 13, 2022
Messages
895
Reaction score
1,636
Location
Melbourne, FL
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What we do in reefing is much more engineering than science. We measure and adjust to (hopefully) achieve desired outcomes.

Recruiters are going to be so confused when I get around to adding "Reef engineer" to my LinkedIn profile.
 

livinlifeinBKK

5000 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
5,720
Reaction score
5,193
Location
Bangkok
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think it all starts with science to say the least...and like someone else said, making observations is a big part of science
 

wareagle

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
161
Reaction score
139
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
As the examples I’ve said….

Science dictates UV lights is harmful to corals.



Most of us use (including myself) plenty of UV (actually more violet than UV) to stimulate pigmentation…. I just understand the process and use it as a controled source of tool for our goals.

Symbiodinium concentration is related to coral health in many articles:



But we very often intentionally reduce their concentration for more intense colors (this is a fact) and sometimes for more growth (this is just my controversial opinion).

Science is not actually dictating what should be done in a reef tank, but misinterpreting what many studies show to be health indicators could mislead us the wrong direction.

Here I differentiate true scientific articles from good aquarium literature, that involves many respected authors with a huge experience on aquarium care. Most of this books are excellent references for us. As an example, I have never ever read a scientific article on 2 part dosing. That is good and serious work of aquarists, but that is not really science…
Apart from nutrient starvation, exposure to UVR worsened the thermal-induced damages on photosynthesis, but only for P. damicornis colonies maintained under control conditions. This is in agreement with several studies finding synergistic effect of temperature and UVR increases on coral bleaching and mortality [15, 22, 36, 70, 71] and with the general observation that UVR exposure is generally linked to a reduction of the temperature threshold of coral bleaching [15, 23, 72]. However some studies measured no effect, or even a mitigating effect of UV on thermal-stress induced bleaching [22, 73], and the same was observed in this study with corals incubated in depleted and enriched nutrient conditions. All together, these observations suggest that drawing broad conclusions about the combined effects of UVR and temperature on coral bleaching still poses a considerable challenge
 

HudsonReefer2.0

Algae Happens
View Badges
Joined
Dec 18, 2021
Messages
5,233
Reaction score
9,503
Location
Mile Square City
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
A certain person had an observation or the unfortunate experience of an apple falling from a tree and hitting them in the head. And looked what developed. Classical mechanics
 

brandon429

why did you put a reef in that
View Badges
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
29,494
Reaction score
23,574
Location
tejas
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is exactly primarily why I deal in work threads, patterns that use other peoples tank outcomes in pattern to establish reefing truths and rules.

our current standard for proof is a reef master with a perfect $30,000 sps reef tank stating what works best. One tank as the example


a work thread excludes the authors reef and solely collects outcomes and testimony from others reefs regarding a given method. Hard to claim sixth sense when 350 homes get the same predicted outcome, that’s science.


if I want to prove scientifically using anecdote pattern lol that rip cleans are safe and ideal, nothing beats seeing 500+ reef tanks of other peoples reefs running rip cleans.


if I want to prove that no cycle ever, ever stalls past a known completion date for its arrangement and that cycle stalling is a bunch of fear based hoopla designed to get your cash, nothing works better than fourteen years of other peoples cycle outcomes showing zero failure to carry initial bioload perfectly mixed with several seneye testers.


The only science I want as proof in reefing is for someone making a claim of best procedure to show me what they can do in others tanks. I’m almost never interested what they can do at home.


I thought when Dan P made the statement about sixth sense in the bacteria dosing thread it was very very intuitive. The author was solely in control of his own perfect reef at home, the X factor can’t be removed from that self report

once a thousand reefs are running and posting about using cycling bacteria to maintain water clarity and avoid invasions, we will have some science pattern to analyze.
 

MoshJosh

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
3,370
Reaction score
3,752
Location
Grand Junction
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
I don't know that I would say sixth sense. More like reacting to subjective observation, observations based on the experience of myself and others, and reactions based on the experience of myself and other. . .

But hey that kind of sounds like science. . . or at the very least it's science adjacent.

HAHA

I think number are important but so is looking at and listening to your tank. . . and so is intuition. . .
 
Back
Top