Do higher parameters = super FAST growth? | BRStv Investigates

[Potatohead]

A couple my thoughts here; at first glance 598% consumption does sound pretty astronomical. So much so that I absolutely checked everywhere for visual/meaningful signs of precipitate and I can tell you with 100% certainty...it is not present.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that we can't reasonably expect a direct 1:1 ratio for amount dosed to the tank versus calcium carbonate skeletal structure built, so I think hoping to see a 598% visual growth increase is a bit too large of an expectation. Along with that, there are probably a variety of other factors tied to the consumption of 60mLs per day that make it really tough to attribute directly to just coral growth alone and this early in the test, our eyes might not be the best measurement tool.

That said, I'm just as surprised at the differences in consumption and verified the data with Aaron. It's really going to be interesting if the same data holds as we continue the experiment over the next 8-months or more!

I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol

 

[randyBRS]

I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol

Worth researching or having someone pop in an enlighten us. I'll do some searching around.

 

[FO_Reef]

No reason to run anything higher than 8dkh.

Can you elaborate on this? I think increased growth would be sufficient reason for some to sacrifice the safety of a buffer zone.

 

[Charlie’s Frags]

2 months ago I raised my alk from around 7 to 8-8.5, no3/po4 from 0.25/0.03 to 10/0.1-0.2 and increased my peak photoperiod from 6 hours to 10. All of these changes produced a significant increase in growth.
March 21st

Just now

 

[Ike]

Thanks! I'm pretty sure we have more growth tests slated around things like different PAR/Spectrum/Nitrates/Phosphates and such. When all is said and done, I really hope we can combine the results for all of these tests (pH, parameters, etc...) into a single test with controlled variables for each one. Meaning, if pH and higher parameters grow corals faster why not combine them and see what happens?

But it's not controlled and there is no control. There are many factors that could be encouraging or limiting growth that aren't being measured nor monitored. It's neat, but there's are many possibilities of drawing a very false and misleading conclusion. Also, if these corals were coming from a system that's close to one set of parameters or the other that's another potentially big factor if in one tank the corals need time to adapt and they don't in the other.

 

[FO_Reef]

But it's not controlled and there is no control. There are many factors that could be encouraging or limiting growth that aren't being measured nor monitored. It's neat, but there's are many possibilities of drawing a very false and misleading conclusion. Also, if these corals were coming from a system that's close to one set of parameters or the other that's another potentially big factor if in one tank the corals need time to adapt and they don't in the other.

It’s better than the anecdotal “evidence” that most are working with currently.

 

[Ike]

It’s better than the anecdotal “evidence” that most are working with currently.

With the way it’s been setup, it will be anecdotal and have a lot more weight put on it by hobbyists. This is worse if the conclusion ends up being wrong.

 

[serwobow]

But it's not controlled and there is no control. There are many factors that could be encouraging or limiting growth that aren't being measured nor monitored. It's neat, but there's are many possibilities of drawing a very false and misleading conclusion. Also, if these corals were coming from a system that's close to one set of parameters or the other that's another potentially big factor if in one tank the corals need time to adapt and they don't in the other.

I agree with this sentiment. There can never be a proper control - just a comparison between 2 different conditions, and coral shock is a possibility in that case. It is also likely that more things differ between the 2 conditions than mentioned. For example, impurities in the alkalinity and calcium supplements such as rare elements could increase growth, and would be higher in the "elevated" tank. Also, there could be unobserved tank-specific differences such as faulty or rusting equipment in the tank with lower levels (the 2 acropora deaths in that tank are concerning). Doing this experiment in duplicate (4 tanks total) would have been more convincing in that regard. On the other hand, resources are limited - no one can be expected to account for all possibilities. The simplest interpretation of the results is most often the correct one, and in this case, the increased growth effects due to elevated alkalinity and calcium levels is the simplest, and probably correct interpretation.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol

because Alkalinity is what dKh is a measurement of .... In other words - to increase the dKH - you have to dose more alkalinity.

 

[MnFish1]

I agree with this sentiment. There can never be a proper control - just a comparison between 2 different conditions, and coral shock is a possibility in that case. It is also likely that more things differ between the 2 conditions than mentioned. For example, impurities in the alkalinity and calcium supplements such as rare elements could increase growth, and would be higher in the "elevated" tank. Also, there could be unobserved tank-specific differences such as faulty or rusting equipment in the tank with lower levels (the 2 acropora deaths in that tank are concerning). Doing this experiment in duplicate (4 tanks total) would have been more convincing in that regard. On the other hand, resources are limited - no one can be expected to account for all possibilities. The simplest interpretation of the results is most often the correct one, and in this case, the increased growth effects due to elevated alkalinity and calcium levels is the simplest, and probably correct interpretation.

This is not correct IMHO - there can be a control - but its expensive/time consuming/difficult to do properly - and might not be needed. ONE type of control would to replicate this experiment 3 times as you mentioned. The other one would be to use smaller volumes - and use fewer types of corals. But - again - I liked the video. To me - standing back - looking at the pictures - I see some differences - but not compelling. And - it could be within the random variation between 2 corals. For example I bought 2 Goniopora - same shop - sitting next to other... One went in the tank - and died - one sitting next to it live 3 years and grew from a ping pong ball to a softball size - same conditions, etc.... Thats why a control is needed

 

[CoralDanimal]

Thank you @Ryanbrs and @randyBRS for the BRS investigates series. I love that you're helping to debunk common myths and substantiate ideas such as elevated dKH / Calcium / Magnesium as well as more simple experiments around mixing saltwater, heater accuracy, etc. I've been in the hobby for 15+ years and have read countless R2R threads, but your work continues the infinite learning of our hobby. It's the reason why I exclusively buy everything I need from BRS even when the products are on Amazon and the shipping is potentially faster (I live in NorCal). I loved the BRS/WWC series as well btw.

As for the control debate, I do a lot of A/B testing professionally and it's rare that the testing environment is 'perfect', but what's important is that you explain the process (which BRS does) and communicate observations without bias (which BRS does) so the consumer can form their own educated opinion on the topic. I for one are extremely grateful for the work all of you are doing. You're empowering us with more information on how to be great stewards of our reefs. Please continue to do all of the great work you're doing and I'll keep buying everything from BRS to show my gratitude

 

[MnFish1]

Thank you @Ryanbrs and @randyBRS for the BRS investigates series. I love that you're helping to debunk common myths and substantiate ideas such as elevated dKH / Calcium / Magnesium as well as more simple experiments around mixing saltwater, heater accuracy, etc. I've been in the hobby for 15+ years and have read countless R2R threads, but your work continues the infinite learning of our hobby. It's the reason why I exclusively buy everything I need from BRS even when the products are on Amazon and the shipping is potentially faster (I live in NorCal). I loved the BRS/WWC series as well btw.

As for the control debate, I do a lot of A/B testing professionally and it's rare that the testing environment is 'perfect', but what's important is that you explain the process (which BRS does) and communicate observations without bias (which BRS does) so the consumer can form their own educated opinion on the topic. I for one are extremely grateful for the work all of you are doing. You're empowering us with more information on how to be great stewards of our reefs. Please continue to do all of the great work you're doing and I'll keep buying everything from BRS to show my gratitude

There is no control debate. at least I hope you didnt get that from my post.

 

[FO_Reef]

because Alkalinity is what dKh is a measurement of .... In other words - to increase the dKH - you have to dose more alkalinity.

Yes that’s obvious. They are saying that it is not a linear scale.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes that’s obvious. They are saying that it is not a linear scale.

Suggestion - rather than just reading what I write - read what I was responding to and the posts before that. And I wasnt responding to the video - I was responding to a poster here...

 

[FO_Reef]

Suggestion - rather than just reading what I write - read what I was responding to and the posts before that. And I wasnt responding to the video - I was responding to a poster here...

I’m aware of that. The poster was responding to a question about why alk was being consumed at 6x the rate, when growth was not increased by 6x.

 

[Potatohead]

because Alkalinity is what dKh is a measurement of .... In other words - to increase the dKH - you have to dose more alkalinity.

Of course, but we're not talking about increasing, we're talking about maintaining. What he said was that if you run a higher alkalinity level overall, you need to dose more in order to maintain that higher level, even if your actual consumption is the same as a tank run at lower alkalinity.

 

[MnFish1]

I’m aware of that. The poster was responding to a question about why alk was being consumed at 6x the rate, when growth was not increased by 6x.

This is what they said: I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol


This was my reply:

because Alkalinity is what dKh is a measurement of .... In other words - to increase the dKH - you have to dose more alkalinity.

So in other words you have taken several posts - and combined them together - and criticised me.. But - this was what the reply was based on....

 

[Potatohead]

This is what they said: I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol


This was my reply:



So in other words you have taken several posts - and combined them together - and criticised me.. But - this was what the reply was based on....

I'll agree with the other guy, you've told me one of the very basic things of reefkeeping and didn't answer the question. No offense of course.

 

[MnFish1]

Of course, but we're not talking about increasing, we're talking about maintaining. What he said was that if you run a higher alkalinity level overall, you need to dose more in order to maintain that higher level, even if your actual consumption is the same as a tank run at lower alkalinity.

Read the post I replied to - and it might make more sense.

FO_Reef said: ↑
I’m aware of that. The poster was responding to a question about why alk was being consumed at 6x the rate, when growth was not increased by 6x.

This is what they said: I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol


This was my reply:
↑
because Alkalinity is what dKh is a measurement of .... In other words - to increase the dKH - you have to dose more alkalinity.

So in other words you have taken several posts - and combined them together - and criticised me.. But - this was what the reply was based on....

 

[FO_Reef]

This is what they said: I don't know if Randy Holmes-Farley is reading this thread, but I do recall him mentioning before that it takes more alkalinity dosing to maintain higher dkh levels in the tank. I'm not smart enough to know why! lol


This was my reply:



So in other words you have taken several posts - and combined them together - and criticised me.. But - this was what the reply was based on....

I’m not criticizing you friend, I just think you missed the point of their comment. Potato head clarified pretty articulately, so I’ll just defer to their response.