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

[air_run]

They are not, in my view.

Stability refers to the amount of fluctuation in your chemistry. Your Alkalinity can be consistently at 7 and your Calcium consistently at 330. These numbers are stable, but low and require attention.

On what basis do you believe that an alkalinty at 7 dKH is low? Serious question. I know for sure a lot of reefers that are utlizing ZEOvit run their systems at that alkalinty and quite a few run them lower. Such as Pawel Szember'saquarium below. This is run at 6.7 dKH.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

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

Absolutely, the nature of the chase is key!

 

[blecki]

This is run at 6.7 dKH.

But I bet he doses a lot of it, doesn't he? Low isn't bad - if it's low because the coral is gobbling it up and you're replacing it. That's a fine example of how stability is better than swings.

 

[MaxTremors]

I don’t think they are at all contradictory. Properly managing your parameters is not ‘chasing numbers’. ‘Chasing numbers’ is usually used in the context of either a new person who doesn’t have the expertise to manage the chemistry of their tank and who hasn’t learned that most of the potions sold in stores are BS, or of a person that does have experience fretting over a PH of 8.3. Stability is maintaining numbers not chasing them.

 

[blecki]

I wish I could get my PH to 8.3.

 

[Dom]

On what basis do you believe that an alkalinty at 7 dKH is low? Serious question. I know for sure a lot of reefers that are utlizing ZEOvit run their systems at that alkalinty and quite a few run them lower. Such as Pawel Szember'saquarium below. This is run at 6.7 dKH.

I'm not saying 7 is low. I just used it as an example to try an illustrate a point.

 

[jda]

When people tell you not to chase numbers, they are for parameters that they do not think is important. When people tell you to work on stability, it is for a parameter that they think is important.

 

[Wasabiroot]

I have always interpreted it as "don't obsess over some arbitrary point you pick, because the answer is probably 'that number is fine' vs a commonly touted number" . Both phrases you reference are also open to a few interpretations- it's sort of like "Pura vida" in Costa Rica, lol.
I agree that technically adjusting parameters is chasing numbers. But I'd argue the word 'chasing' is key as it implies an obsession.

I also feel that if your system is stable, it requires less adjustment overall meaning less fluctuations meaning less need to adjust. There is no perfect system that will not require outside input from time to time. The point is that instead of obsessing over your phosphates being 0.1 vs 0.11, focus on a broad approach of regular maintance and infrequent large swings. Most corals are adaptable to stressors, but some handle larger swings better than others. I think it's also unfair to include regular routine maintenance in chasing numbers when you're talking reef tanks. There are test kits for virtually every parameter you could think available; testing and adjusting water is basically the core part of the hobby so unavoidable. Just don't pick some number and elevate it to The Number No Matter What Oh God I'm Panicking It's Off 0.13 units

 

[KrisReef]

Instability and chasing numbers
That is a game for youth.

 

[danny_M]

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 think i might add my "chase" to this discussion . I was ( mind the "was") trying to keep my Ph at an average of 8.3 together with efforts to keep my Po4 and No3 at the levels of resp. 0.05 and 15ppm. Trying to get there to maintain stability and optimal growth. Switched over to Tropic Marine Carbon dosing method ( bacto balance, NP plus, Pallets) and saw the Po4 making jumps from 0.0 over 1.5 back to 0.02 and so on. Nitrate never above 5.. Ph still at an average of 8.15, can't seem to get it any higher then that without spiking alkalinity above 12 , even while adding Kalkwasser and sodium hydroxide, installed CO scrubber... All to no avail, can't reach the goals....That's chasing numbers....

Last weekend, i did a "hard reset" in the chase.... I simply stopped the TM pallets, reduced NPplus dosing, raised bacto balance a bit and stopped sodium-hydroxide all together. I did start dosing the new Phosfeed from TM. Result after one week of going back to basics seems to turn towards some kind of improvement : Po4 at 0.04 ppm , NO3 at 10ppm, average Ca 8.15 and alk slowly descending back to a level around 10. So i stopped chasing numbers i might say and leaving the aquarium settle. The followiong weeks will show how the values evolve, but i won't go bananas any more if my ideal values are not met. Nothing goes fast in reefing... Proposal to change this phrase to : "don't chase numbers, stroll towards them "

 

[biom]

Maybe I am the last person to reply here being non native English speaker but I don't think people's bad reaction on phrase "Don't chase numbers!" has something to do with reefing. IMO it is just human reaction on the phrase because it sounds like somebody is accusing you of doing something wrong or stupid ("Don't chase poor cat!" - "OK, Mum"). IMO there is less chance for negative reaction if phrase it differently like "Any numbers between 0.02 - 0.1 ppm phosphate are OK. There is no need to focus on a specific number. Older, well established tanks can thrive even at levels above 1 ppm".

 

[Wasabiroot]

Imo too - if you look long enough, many reefing phrases can be contradictory. "Keep your hands out of the tank" is kind of a moot point as soon as any intervention is required beyond routine maintenance. Frags break off, coral gets moved by inverts, perhaps some algae appears that is easily removed by hand, or, if you want to get silly, arm length gloves allow you to feel less concerned. All these reefing "idioms" are best used as starting points for thought, not as literal absolutes.

 

[KrisReef]

Imo too - if you look long enough, many reefing phrases can be contradictory. "Keep your hands out of the tank" is kind of a moot point as soon as any intervention is required beyond routine maintenance. Frags break off, coral gets moved by inverts, perhaps some algae appears that is easily removed by hand, or, if you want to get silly, arm length gloves allow you to feel less concerned. All these reefing "idioms" are best used as starting points for thought, not as literal absolutes.

I have been reefing for 30* years (I lost count, it could be a lot more?) and I am very upset with your comment on my “silly, arm length gloves.” I suppose you think that condoms are silly too?

I don’t like how gloves make it difficult to pick up fallen fragments but I swear my fish are happier when I wear them. My disgusting dirty hands and arms cannot possibly improve their water quality and in a small tank (compared to an ocean) my filthy body is not welcome and my fish love me when I slip on those silly gloves and keep my dirt out of their breathing environment.

So, does putting on gloves keep my hands out of the tank? We’re chasing definitions and hopefully we can improve our understanding(s) by using more precise terminology.

*I am not the most precise employer of the English language and I agree that our understanding of things could improve if we chased better communication and use fewer cliches in our posts.

I truly have enjoyed this conversation thread and the discussion about our views on not chasing numbers while balancing stability.

“Ever since the Fall man has struggled to maintain balance. “ (I don’t know whose idea should give attribution too for this last idea).

 

[I never finish anythi]

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.

Nailed it

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

I guess its a little bit of semantics, and IMO you are misinterpreting the meaning, or at least the intended meaning, of "don't chase numbers". Maybe it should be "don't chase specific numbers". What these two statements taken together mean is that you should not target a specific number but instead should seek stability anywhere within the acceptable range. For example, if your alkalinity is 7.5 every time you test it, but you read online that "8.5 is ideal", don't try to change it to 8.5 (especially if everything is more or less happy). You'll do more harm targeting a specific number than letting it sit stable anywhere within the acceptable range. The intent of these statements is to let newbies know not to get hung up on targeting a perfect number but instead target on maintaining stability within the acceptable range. I see nothing confusing or wrong about that statement and think it is excellent advice.

To make a science comparison, this is the difference between precision and accuracy. Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the true value. Precision refers to how close measurements are to each other. Within reason, we care about precision, not accuracy.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

Let you reef tank tell you what it needs...

I know that sounds wired, but every tank is different , and ever aquarist know their tank - so what works for one may not work for the other, and so there is no one formula (numbers) that you need to hit for a successful reef tank.

This is so important and I dont think it gets said enough. And I think it might be a "don't believe it until you see it" thing. But I've had dozens of tanks in multiple cities and states over the last 20 years, with varying levels of success. I'd previously targeted an alkalinity of 9 because, on paper, it seemed like the "right" number - centered in the middle of the acceptable range, a drop or increase 1 or 2 dkh still keeps you safely within range, etc. But in my new tank, it took me a while to figure out, but all my acros start to get ticked if alkalinity goes much above ~8.2. I've kept this tank between an alk of 7-8 and it's been the most successful tank I've ever had but I needed to pay attention to the corals and let them tell me where they wanted the parameters vs me forcing levels on them that seemed better or worked better for other people. I don't tell other people they should run their alk below 8 despite this being wildly successful for me, because I know there are other people who run tanks at 9 or even 12 that are also successful.

I know this is only tangentially related to the initial topic but IMO too important to not discuss.

 

[LobsterOfJustice]

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.

But the point of the statement is... why do you want to lower the alkalinity in the first place? Because you read online that a lower number is "better"? Is everything happy? Assuming the number is within reason and things are happy, you're more likely to tick things off (or kill them) by lowering the alk, even when done carefully as you have suggested, than just letting that number be "high" and stay there.

 

[Miami Reef]

But the point of the statement is... why do you want to lower the alkalinity in the first place? Because you read online that a lower number is "better"? Is everything happy? Assuming the number is within reason and things are happy, you're more likely to tick things off (or kill them) by lowering the alk, even when done carefully as you have suggested, than just letting that number be "high" and stay there.

Many successful acropora keepers prefer lower alkalinity. There’s no harm in striving for natural seawater alkalinity. In fact, higher alkalinity can be stressful with very low nutrients.

And before you propose to just keep higher nutrients, why would you “chase” nutrients, but not alkalinity?

 

[PeterErc]

 

[PeterErc]

End of debate it’s on BRS TV so it’s gotta be true….and for the record, no I did not watch the video lol