Don't chase numbers, stability is key (makes no sense)

[MDAquatics]

I get what you're saying. But what's meant by the term is to not get hung up on a specific set of numbers. If your tank is happy, keep things the way they are and maintain your numbers, don't try to achieve a different set because the internet says your parameters should be X Y or Z. That's what they mean.

 

[Miami Reef]

We all chase certain numbers, whether we like to admit it or not. Especially if you want to keep more challenging corals.

Some people tell new reefers to lower their nutrients if they have algae.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, if someone has low nutrients, it’s apparently bad; raise them.

They all want people to chase their ideal nutrients and numbers to suit their narrative, but people who strive to keep their tanks a different way, that they don’t agree with, is foolish and “chasing.”

I NEVER liked the term “chasing numbers,” as if it’s a bad thing.

Yes, stability is important, but it’s way overrated. Overly stable can be harmful in some cases. Corals that have adapt to some temperature fluctuations can better handle real temperature changes from the inevitable power outage etc.

Just my opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I have never once, in decades of advising on reef chemistry, said “don’t chase numbers”.

Chasing desirable values, when done in an appropriate fashion never leads to instability.

It’s how you chase that matters!

 

[Miami Reef]

It’s how you chase that matters!

I was trying to think of an example of how certain chasing can be undesirable. I got one example.

Let’s see you have very high alkalinity, for whatever reason, and you want to lower it.

Here’s a bad way to chase numbers: dump a bunch of unmeasured acid (muriatic acid) directly into the tank. The pH will become VERY low, and might kill many things in the tank.

Here’s a good way alternative: stop dosing alkalinity, and let it come down by itself. If the alk is very high, and you want to be a little quicker, you can add acid to new make-up water. Let it aerate heavily for 1 day to back up the pH, and then do a water change.

Both scenarios wanted to chase a lower alkalinity for their tank, but one was much more harmful than the other.

 

[PeterErc]

Run a phosban reactor, dose lanthanum daily, run a chaeto reactor, algae turf scrubber and one of those toilet paper filters. . Don’t do water changes, dose nitrate, phosphate and every trace element known to man. Send in water for ICP and think, man look at those numbers, I am a stud.
Dramatic? Maybe.

Keep it simple,


It use to be, live rock, flow and light are all you need to keep a reef. Add a skimmer and heater/chiller if needed for stable temp.
Weekly or daily water changes and don’t dose anything you can’t test for.

 

[Miami Reef]

Run a phosban reactor, dose lanthanum daily, run a chaeto reactor, algae turf scrubber and one of those toilet paper filters. . Don’t do water changes, dose nitrate, phosphate and every trace element known to man. Send in water for ICP and think, man look at those numbers, I am a stud.
Dramatic? Maybe.

Keep it simple,


It use to be, live rock, flow and light are all you need to keep a reef. Add a skimmer and heater/chiller if needed for stable temp.
Weekly or daily water changes and don’t dose anything you can’t test for.

Why would a person run phosban and dose lanthanum to remove phosphates, but then dose phosphates? This example is being too hyperbolic. The majority of reefers aren‘t doing this, so blanket statements like “don’t chase any number” is just foolish. We all chase some numbers - at least if you want to have somewhat of a decent tank.

 

[The_Paradox]

I don’t think the axiom was meant as an absolute. To me it means don’t worry about what actual numbers are if everything is doing well. In my case I know I have stupid numbers but everything is happy and healthy so I’m not going to change just because the new hotness is low alkalinity. Even when I catch a parameter that’s what I deem as needing adjusting, I do it by adjusting dosing a couple percent not dumping in a pile of chemicals. Ie: I adjust it over weeks or months back to where it used to be not in a few days with shot glasses full of chems. Just my two centavos.

 

[FishTruck]

You should chase results (the ones that you want), not necessarily numbers.

Some tanks do great with high nutrients, some parameters altered have counterproductive ramifications, hobby test kits are often wrong, lots of "ideal numbers" are fads, and change with time.

 

[Miami Reef]

I don’t think the axiom was meant as an absolute. To me it means don’t worry about what actual numbers are if everything is doing well. In my case I know I have stupid numbers but everything is happy and healthy so I’m not going to change just because the new hotness is low alkalinity. Even when I catch a parameter that’s what I deem as needing adjusting, I do it by adjusting dosing a couple percent not dumping in a pile of chemicals. Ie: I adjust it over weeks or months back to where it used to be not in a few days with shot glasses full of chems. Just my two centavos.

I agree that taking things slow is good, and I personally don’t see anything wrong with striving for certain numbers. Personally, my favorite tanks of members always ran lower nutrients. I liked the colors of the corals better, so I strive for lower nutrients.

 

[Reefer911]

I don't understand why this is such a commonly used phrase. It makes no sense. "Don't chase numbers" and "Stability is key" are contradicting statements.

Let's say you're targeting an Alk level of 8.5 dkh and you notice when testing your level has risen to 9 dkh so you adjust your alk dosing amount down a bit. This is chasing a number but it's also striving for stability.

Let's say you have a Mg level of 1300 and discover that Eyphillia do better at a higher Mg level so you choose to gradually and responsibly raise your Mg level to 1500 over the course of a couple weeks and then maintain the level at 1500. This is chasing a number.

Let's say you test PO4, which for your tank is typically in the 0.05 to 0.08 range, but you find it's at 0.15 and you choose to run some GFO in a responsible manner. This is chasing a number.

Arguably, the most important parameter of all, salinity, we all know should be close to 35 ppm. Are you not topping off your aquarium with freshwater to maintain your salinity? Guess what? That's chasing a number.

All of these are examples of chasing a number but are in no way detrimental or negative. In almost every case imaginable attaining stability means chasing numbers. Otherwise why even test? The phrase "don't chase numbers" is dumb, it's more nuanced than that. Rant over.

I agree. I think it’s nothing more than a catch phrase to make some feel superior to others by talking down to them.

Just last week I responded to a post on the BRS FB group when someone mentioned to not chase numbers. My response was basically that nothing is absolute so sometimes we have to chase numbers. At that time my PO4 was 0.00, so I was chasing 0.03

Which I achieved this AM

 

[PeterErc]

Why would a person run phosban and dose lanthanum to remove phosphates, but then dose phosphates? This example is being too hyperbolic. The majority of reefers aren‘t doing this, so blanket statements like “don’t chase any number” is just foolish. We all chase some numbers - at least if you want to have somewhat of a decent tank.

Yes, dramatic indeed. On a smaller scale it happens.

When I started out I listened to the girl at the LFS. She said my calcium was too low and sold me a bottle of calcium. I dosed and tested until the bottle was gone. Calcium did not budge. Back to the LFS and the girl told me, well, rocks and sand absorb the calcium or some bs like that. I bought the big bottle this time. Soon after I joined a forum with my newbie question. I was told to check my magnesium. Bingo!

When someone new comes to ask a question, or is frazzled from some mis information. I can see where someone would say don’t chase numbers. Especially if they don’t know what the number means in respect to the other numbers.
Nothing good happens fast says the guy who watched coralline bleach out from dosing Kent Super Buffer DKH. Wonder why my calcium was so low

 

[Propane]

I’ve seen a lot of good examples of what people think it means and it encompasses all those things. I could even add to my original thought with “Look at the big picture”. I’m actually curious to hear from someone who found it confusing or from someone who interpreted it a certain way and that interpretation was detrimental in someway.

 

[Rugops]

One should chase ideal values but when the word "chase" is used, it may seem like reaching that value needs to be quickly done and as others have alluded to, there are both correct and incorrect ways to "chase" values.

So to believe that the phrases used is wrong what seems to be a matter of perception and interpretation.

Since dKH, Ca, and Mg (Mg not so much) can become depleted very quickly as I have much LPS and some SPS growing, I would be "chasing" values to make sure that they are what I want.

 

[PeterErc]

I’ve seen a lot of good examples of what people think it means and it encompasses all those things. I could even add to my original thought with “Look at the big picture”. I’m actually curious to hear from someone who found it confusing or from someone who interpreted it a certain way and that interpretation was detrimental in someway.

Please don’t
“Think outside of the box”

 

[blecki]

Let's just say that instead of chasing numbers, you should follow them at a leisurely pace.

 

[7of9]

Let's just say that instead of chasing numbers, you should follow them at a leisurely pace.

 

[Dan_P]

I don't understand why this is such a commonly used phrase. It makes no sense. "Don't chase numbers" and "Stability is key" are contradicting statements.

Let's say you're targeting an Alk level of 8.5 dkh and you notice when testing your level has risen to 9 dkh so you adjust your alk dosing amount down a bit. This is chasing a number but it's also striving for stability.

Let's say you have a Mg level of 1300 and discover that Eyphillia do better at a higher Mg level so you choose to gradually and responsibly raise your Mg level to 1500 over the course of a couple weeks and then maintain the level at 1500. This is chasing a number.

Let's say you test PO4, which for your tank is typically in the 0.05 to 0.08 range, but you find it's at 0.15 and you choose to run some GFO in a responsible manner. This is chasing a number.

Arguably, the most important parameter of all, salinity, we all know should be close to 35 ppm. Are you not topping off your aquarium with freshwater to maintain your salinity? Guess what? That's chasing a number.

All of these are examples of chasing a number but are in no way detrimental or negative. In almost every case imaginable attaining stability means chasing numbers. Otherwise why even test? The phrase "don't chase numbers" is dumb, it's more nuanced than that. Rant over.

I assume it means maintaining an aquarium is on a pass-fail grading system. Keep the numbers within the acceptable range and if that range can be narrowed by good maintenance practices, so much the better. Otherwise it’s an apologists argument for not testing

 

[blecki]

When people say don't chase numbers it's only ever in two contexts - Either it's someone who has spiked their alkalinity from 7 to 12 in one dose or it's someone who's tank is a month old and they think they need to dose ammonia because zero nitrate is 'bad'.

Nobody says that you shouldn't correct a problem if it exists and it's not an excuse for not testing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I was trying to think of an example of how certain chasing can be undesirable. I got one example.

Let’s see you have very high alkalinity, for whatever reason, and you want to lower it.

Here’s a bad way to chase numbers: dump a bunch of unmeasured acid (muriatic acid) directly into the tank. The pH will become VERY low, and might kill many things in the tank.

Here’s a good way alternative: stop dosing alkalinity, and let it come down by itself. If the alk is very high, and you want to be a little quicker, you can add acid to new make-up water. Let it aerate heavily for 1 day to back up the pH, and then do a water change.

Both scenarios wanted to chase a lower alkalinity for their tank, but one was much more harmful than the other.

Folks seem to think that chasing stable alk at a particular value is desirable, with expensive controllers and auto dosers to accomplish that, and then say don’t chase any other numbers.

Perhaps that’s a reasonable opinion, but I personally think one can always set a target or a range and chase it appropriately with no negative consequences.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

When people say don't chase numbers it's only ever in two contexts - Either it's someone who has spiked their alkalinity from 7 to 12 in one dose or it's someone who's tank is a month old and they think they need to dose ammonia because zero nitrate is 'bad'.

Nobody says that you shouldn't correct a problem if it exists and it's not an excuse for not testing.

Lots of people use that expression about pH.