Does maintaining tank stability become a "trap" for reefers?

[Gumbies R Us]

One thing we all strive for is having a stable tank. A tank where corals are growing, fish are getting along, and we aren't dealing with algae outbreaks. Even though a stable tank is something we all strive to have, it can become a trap. A trap of constantly testing parameters to make sure everything is perfect. A trap to make sure every coral is trimmed just right. A trap that leaving your tank even for a day can mean disaster for your tank. Does having a perfectly stable tank become more of a burden/trap than one that is not perfect? Curious to hear what everyone thinks!

 

[code4]

For me they have only been a trap when they weren't stable. Stable means I can leave for awhile without worrying. And finding a fellow reefer to look in while I am gone would be better.

 

[exnisstech]

I think often people try to control too much with all the tech and bottled miracles and additives available, especially on new tanks. People don't seem want to wait for a tank to reach a state of normalcy without intervention which for me is the first step to stability.

 

[mfinn]

One thing we all strive for is having a stable tank. A tank where corals are growing, fish are getting along, and we aren't dealing with algae outbreaks. Even though a stable tank is something we all strive to have, it can become a trap. A trap of constantly testing parameters to make sure everything is perfect. A trap to make sure every coral is trimmed just right. A trap that leaving your tank even for a day can mean disaster for your tank. Does having a perfectly stable tank become more of a burden/trap than one that is not perfect? Curious to hear what everyone thinks!

To me, stability is the opposite of everything you mention.

 

[commod0re]

A trap of constantly testing parameters to make sure everything is perfect. A trap to make sure every coral is trimmed just right. A trap that leaving your tank even for a day can mean disaster for your tank

This is OCD/anxiety not stability

 

[BeanAnimal]

One thing we all strive for is having a stable tank. A tank where corals are growing, fish are getting along, and we aren't dealing with algae outbreaks. Even though a stable tank is something we all strive to have, it can become a trap. A trap of constantly testing parameters to make sure everything is perfect. A trap to make sure every coral is trimmed just right. A trap that leaving your tank even for a day can mean disaster for your tank. Does having a perfectly stable tank become more of a burden/trap than one that is not perfect? Curious to hear what everyone thinks!

I think that the word "stable" does a lot of work here. I would agree in the sense that most of us would desire to have "stability" in the context of predictability in inputs (food, dosing, and time) to achieve a predictable output, that being a maintainable reef with no sudden surprises.

It gets fuzzy in the sense that the predictable may not be predictable without, say, a test. "My kH is x today, my chart says add y of carbonate to reach target z." That may be "23 ml per day, until testing changes that." But it is "stability" and a reasonable goal.

Where I think the word gets overused is twofold.

First, in basic chemistry: notice above that I distinguished "stability" from "predictability," or "testable and adjustable," in the context of correlatable results.

That is not to say that the actual kH, phosphate, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, salinity, or temperature levels need to be "fixed" or "stable." I think there is plenty of room for drift, randomness, and fluctuation in those values that do not substantially affect the "stable" reef. That is, the reef that presents the desired outcome.

Secondly, and as important, is the concept of things like a "stable" microbiome, or stable "nutrient ratios," or trying to chase "stable" ICP results for parameters that are not proven to be part of the biological process. This list of abstract terms being applied to "stability" is growing. I think this is chasing the wrong "stability" for a host of reasons, but mostly because there are no defined targets or data that shows what "stability" here is or does.

So the word "stable" does a lot of work, but should be kept in context.

That's my two strips of bacon.

 

[ColorMeGone]

No problems here

 

[sixty_reefer]

I think that the word "stable" does a lot of work here. I would agree in the sense that most of us would desire to have "stability" in the context of predictability in inputs (food, dosing, and time) to achieve a predictable output, that being a maintainable reef with no sudden surprises.

It gets fuzzy in the sense that the predictable may not be predictable without, say, a test. "My kH is x today, my chart says add y of carbonate to reach target z." That may be "23 ml per day, until testing changes that." But it is "stability" and a reasonable goal.

Where I think the word gets overused is twofold.

First, in basic chemistry: notice above that I distinguished "stability" from "predictability," or "testable and adjustable," in the context of correlatable results.

That is not to say that the actual kH, phosphate, nitrate, magnesium, calcium, salinity, or temperature levels need to be "fixed" or "stable." I think there is plenty of room for drift, randomness, and fluctuation in those values that do not substantially affect the "stable" reef. That is, the reef that presents the desired outcome.

Secondly, and as important, is the concept of things like a "stable" microbiome, or stable "nutrient ratios," or trying to chase "stable" ICP results for parameters that are not proven to be part of the biological process. This list of abstract terms being applied to "stability" is growing. I think this is chasing the wrong "stability" for a host of reasons, but mostly because there are no defined targets or data that shows what "stability" here is or does.

So the word "stable" does a lot of work, but should be kept in context.

That's my two strips of bacon.

You’ve spent a lot of time telling us what “stability” isn’t but I don’t think you’ve defined what “stability” is. How are you defining the term and what would distinguish a stable aquarium from an unstable one?

For decades, aquarists have generally used “stability” to mean maintaining reasonably consistent conditions and avoiding significant swings, not perfectly fixed numbers, if the goal is to discard a long standing husbandry concept without providing a clear replacement, it’s not obvious how that helps aquarists make better decisions.

 

[BryanM]

Stability without going crazy is key. Some think I'm already crazy for subscribing to the Triton Method, but doing so was 100% about stability. I have 6 dosers automating it, its very new to me, and I just sent in my 2nd ICP test.

Stability is also a bit of a range.. you can't keep everything at the same level all of the time, but keeping things within reasonable ranges is key. The only thing I am really trying to keep rock solid are Salinity (easy), and alk, not so easy :)

 

[BeanAnimal]

You’ve spent a lot of time telling us what “stability” isn’t but I don’t think you’ve defined what “stability” is. How are you defining the term and what would distinguish a stable aquarium from an unstable one?

I am perfectly happy to be engaged and be challenged, but that is not an accurate characterization of my post. The reframe adds context that was not there to manufacture a question I did not claim to answer.

I did not set out to define stability in a singular context and said so explicitly. The word does a "lot of work" precisely because it means different things depending on how it is used. I addressed three specific uses and gave my opinion on each in response to an open question.

 

[alxshi]

One thing we all strive for is having a stable tank. A tank where corals are growing, fish are getting along, and we aren't dealing with algae outbreaks. Even though a stable tank is something we all strive to have, it can become a trap. A trap of constantly testing parameters to make sure everything is perfect. A trap to make sure every coral is trimmed just right. A trap that leaving your tank even for a day can mean disaster for your tank. Does having a perfectly stable tank become more of a burden/trap than one that is not perfect? Curious to hear what everyone thinks!

If anything, I feel an unstable tank is what leads people to constantly test and worry to ensure that everything is perfect. Sure it can be a process to reach stability sometimes, but to me, once you reach stability it means you can confidently be more hands-off. Stability is key in reefs and there’s a reason everyone preaches it. You absolutely need stability, so characterizing it as a “burden/trap” seems misleading.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I am perfectly happy to be engaged and be challenged, but that is not an accurate characterization of my post. The reframe adds context that was not there to manufacture a question I did not claim to answer.

I did not set out to define stability in a singular context and said so explicitly. The word does a "lot of work" precisely because it means different things depending on how it is used. I addressed three specific uses and gave my opinion on each in response to an open question.

If stability means different things in different contexts, then what criteria are you using to determine which uses of the term are valid and which ones are not?

 

[CHSUB]

Imo, “stability” is a meaningless and ambiguous term in the hobby. One example is nutrients including phosphate, which in nature is very dynamic and this study confirms low levels with pulse addition is very advantageous to corals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8222273/

 

[BeanAnimal]

If stability means different things in different contexts, then what criteria are you using to determine which uses of the term are valid and which ones are not?

That question has no fixed answer without a specific context. It can't be answered as asked, it is abstract and open ended. Stability of what, in what context?

My original post gave a practical answer that was not ambiguous and clearly stated my opinion on three specific uses of the term.

 

[sixty_reefer]

That question has no fixed answer without a specific context. It can't be answered as asked, it is abstract and open ended. Stability of what, in what context?

My original post gave a practical answer that was not ambiguous and clearly stated my opinion on three specific uses of the term.

I’m still not following. You seem comfortable with stability when discussing predictable import and export but much more skeptical of its use wend discussing microbiome, nutrient ratios and ICP trends. What’s the distinction here?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Imo, “stability” is a meaningless and ambiguous term in the hobby. One example is nutrients including phosphate, which in nature is very dynamic and this study confirms low levels with pulse addition is very advantageous to corals.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8222273/

Would you consider a water change a sign of instability or an aid to stability? A water change intentionally changes nutrient, trace elements and other parameters in a similar way to the article yiu linked.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I’m still not following. You seem comfortable with stability when discussing predictable import and export but much more skeptical of its use wend discussing microbiome, nutrient ratios and ICP trends. What’s the distinction here?

That distinction was made clear in my initial post.

You are consistently reframing my comments to manufacture a question that was not part of the original context.

I did not use the word 'comfortable' and I did not frame it as stable versus unstable.

I said that in my opinion predictable inputs producing predictable outcomes is a useful practical goal. The context was explicit. I suggested replacing the word stability with predictability in that specific use. That distinction does not require the word stability at all. That was the actual point.

 

[sixty_reefer]

That distinction was made clear in my initial post.

You are consistently reframing my comments to manufacture a question that was not part of the original context.

I did not use the word 'comfortable' and I did not frame it as stable versus unstable.

I said that in my opinion predictable inputs producing predictable outcomes is a useful practical goal. The context was explicit. I suggested replacing the word stability with predictability in that specific use. That distinction does not require the word stability at all. That was the actual point.

OK, what’s the difference between stability and predictability in the context you’re describing and what problem does replacing one with the other solve?

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Personally I think stable is the kool-aid we drink at some point in our journey. Everyone’s experience is different though so I’m not saying it doesn’t work.

For many years I had what I would call successful tanks that I never really fussed with parameter wise. Instant ocean hydrometer that I rarely used, real ocean water, tap water for top off (whenever I got around to it), the lame old api master reef test kit (maybe used it a dozen times over the years), glass heaters that were very inconsistent, feeding whenever I had the time, plain old filter floss over a wet/dry trickle filter. I maintained everything but kinda just let the tanks be. They were great tanks!

My current tank, I jumped on the stability train. Full blown controller, testing all the time, everything done a set schedules. Feeding like clockwork, temp within two degrees 24/7 (heater/chiller), lighting that ramped up and down, automatic water changes 24/7, uv, filter roller, all the whirly twirly gizmomatic stuff to obtain the holy grail of “stability”….after all, it is “key”. Not gonna lie, worst tank ever! Well, maybe most stubborn tank ever is more fitting.

I’ve been slowly letting things go….back to the stone ages….where it just “is”. That’s my opinion on the matter, take it for what it is….ha!

 

[BeanAnimal]

What’s the difference between stability and predictability in the context you’re describing and what problem does replacing one with the other solve?

You have reframed every response.

This is the fourth consecutive reframe.

That was clearly and directly addressed in my original post.
The distinction, context and the reason for it are all there.